Why continue to ask people to “prove” (my word’s not anyone else’s) that their preference for the system is founded upon predicates you will accept? When there is no directive that would impel anyone to believe that your acceptance of their preference is required?
It's not required at all. I put forth a theory for why we continue to see Vancian memorization in D&D, and I offered some conditions by which that theory might be challenged. You don't have to challenge that theory.
It is patently absurd to tell anyone that their preference for something (stated in the affirmative,”Because I do,”) “Just doesn’t cut it” without the clarification that it, “Just doesn’t cut it, FOR YOU.”
I'm not saying it doesn't cut it and they'd better get new reasons or else.
I'm saying that it doesn't cut it as a challenge to the idea that the D&D community's larger preference for Vancian memorization is primarily based on nostalgia.
I'm not telling anyone their opinion is wrong.
I'm telling them that if they want to convince me (and no one is making them try to convince me) that other, gameplay- and mechanics-based reasons exist, they need to hit a higher bar.
Also, it is your opinion (and you have often reminded others about the disparity of value of opinions) that it is primarily driven by nostalgia.
Absolutely. And I'm open to changing that opinion - I'd like to see some real discussion around reasons people prefer Vancian memorization. Some people are starting to do that, but this thread is getting otherwise bogged down in personal attacks.
Enjoyment of the system, in present sense, because you enjoy it, has no basis on nostalgia at all.
Now that's certainly not true.
We all have foods that we enjoy, and that even we'd be forced to consider are "weird", and that we're almost sure we'd probably not develop an affinity for, except for the fact that we grew up eating them and we now find them enjoyable for that reason. That's what comfort food is. We enjoy it, in a very real, present sense, because of its connection to our past.
Wait did you just post that you never told anyone their opinion was wrong, follow by asking what's wrong with telling someone their opinion is wrong?
Not quite, but very close, yes.
I did ask a question, though.
Also, given that you apparently support the idea of asking people on the internet if they have Asperger's, let's lay off the feigned astonishment at questions you'd like to be insulted by.
Wait did you just post that you never told anyone their opinion was wrong, follow by asking what's wrong with telling someone their opinion is wrong?Not quite, but very close, yes.
I did ask a question, though.
Also, given that you apparently support the idea of asking people on the internet if they have Asperger's, let's lay off the feigned astonishment at questions you'd like to be insulted by.
Yes, I do belief everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially something as subjective as games. And I am not insulted by you, I'd have to think there was some value in anything you say for that. And I liked the fact that some one finally called you out for the way you treat other posters on the boards.
Wow.....this thread is..just...wow.
Ya know, I was thinking about the differences I had when I played wizards in previous editions to the game (at low-levels, at mid-levels, and at high-levels) and compared that to my somewhat limitied exerience in playing one with 4th Edition and this is the conclusion I came up with: It's about what system works with what playstyle and strategy of the players.
As a low-level vancian spellcaster in v3.5, you had to be cunning as a player and understand that you're not going to directly affect every battle that day. It just was the norm. You might use a combat spell or two, or if you had time to scribe a scroll...cool. But for the most part, you were stuck with the delimma of "Ok, how can I help without using up all my magic this battle?" And sometimes opportuinities presented themselves and sometimes not. Resource management was key. What we ended up doing.....starting our adventures and characters at about 4th level to avert that sort of gameplay. I didn't find it fun but I enjoyed what the wizard represented (someone who studies magic through tomes and spellbooks, uses intelligence to solve problems, and crafts a lot of things). Besides, the class was mechanically better.....after 4th level than the sorcerer for our style of games.
When I got into playing a wizard in a 4E game, well the tides had changed a bit. I had these cool at-will powers that allowed me to stay "in the game" as it were and I could directly effect the battle with a little bit more "Powerful" spell (an encounter spell) AND I had the opportuinity to use one of those beautiful dailies that might change the battle completly (and even had a built in consolation prize for missing). I had enough Vancian for the class to make me say "hmm, my selection is still pivotal while not being a possible disaster to the group". I had a class that focused on Intelligence and used actual wizard tools. I had a class that gained a spellbook and rituals to which I could go on quests to find more of. It just fit my "combat-heavy" style more than true Vancian did.
So really, it comes down to what a player expects to do and how that style will help or hinder them in play. For some people perhaps they love being able to show off their natural (RW) intellect, or enjoy the challenge of hopefully picking correctly during spell memorization time, or the sort of play that kinda forces Out of the box thinking, or resource management. For others, sometimes people just like to blow sh!t up and directly effect battle or not put that much time and thought into what they may face for the coming day.
So I hope the devs make it so both styles can use the same class, even if I probably will give wizards those free At-will spell feats just to make them feel more useful at low levels.
Yes, I do belief everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially something as subjective as games. And I am not insulted by you, I'd have to think there was some value in anything you say for that. And I liked the fact that some one finally called you out for the way you treat other posters on the boards.Wait did you just post that you never told anyone their opinion was wrong, follow by asking what's wrong with telling someone their opinion is wrong?Not quite, but very close, yes.
I did ask a question, though.
Also, given that you apparently support the idea of asking people on the internet if they have Asperger's, let's lay off the feigned astonishment at questions you'd like to be insulted by.
[rant]
And lets check personal attacks at the door, hm? What I find funny is that with the released information of D&D:next, this sub-forum alone as been the hot-bed for Edition Wars for the past 3 weeks straight. Frankly, many of us play both Pathfinder AND 4E (why else, would we be here?) and I, personally, I'm just sick of it. We get it, there are a LOT of people who don't like 4E. Yes, we know you exist. Yes, we know your mad. Yes, you've been saying a lot of bad stuff about this edition. We know. Are ya done? (this isn't specifically directed at you J. Franklin, just the general anti-4E people).And I'm with Scott on this. For a good long time we've seen relative peace on this Sub-Forum because most people just left us alone to do our thing. I don't think many people here go to other areas because it's specifically taylored to Pathfinder stuff (obviously), but really let it go people. And more likley than not, those with anti-4E views come in here and just make blanket, mean, and snarky replies with no intention of an actual, civilized debate. I mean, why would they, they often don't care enought to listen or stick around for it. So when us "pro-4E" people start getting snarky back.....well Heavn forbid!
I know this doesn't have to do with the Original topic, but FFS people, it's just a GD game. [/rant]
Haha! Come on, don't say check personal attacks at the door then immediately blanket-insult the anti 4E crowd. The problem lies with the people, not the groups. The Internet turns rational, mild mannered people into frothing kettle-bangers with five too many bones to pick. It's also a lot easier to read angry tones where text is involved (often where it was never intended).
Having said that, I hope no one's reading anything I've said as anything other than healthy debating or disagreements. I harbor no ill will towards any one (thus far!) even when I think their views are outrageous. People disagree. Hell, friends disagree. Best to just diagnose an impasse and move on than go purple in the face yelling about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diffan, we've been dealing with Scott's act for years here. He has always been completely dismissively rude towards anyone who may have thought WotC wasn't doing as well as their facade presented itself, persistently "corrected" anyone who had a negative thing to say about 4e, and generally made himself a punch line. And he was wrong about almost everything, it turns out. The schadenfreude some people here are feeling after three years of him acting like 4e is his kid and he hates people picking on her is very powerful.
|
|
I think Scott like everyone else is very passionate about the games he plays. He fends them. sometimes too much imo yet I'm not going to fault him for that. Way too many wrong things said about 4E from gamers eother who have not played the game or started a thread to delbrately provoke a reaction from the pro-4E crowd. so the whole "were not going to take responsability for bad behavior on this site and try to pin the blmae only on scott Betts" act needs to stop. It kind of a glass houses and stones kind of thing. I'm not saying I'm perfect. I'm not. At leasT I have the stones to admit to that. Nor am I saying the 4E crowd is blameless either. Yet whenever a topic goes bad more ofthen then not it's someone who is anti-4E that starts it.
@ Kagehiro: I didn't insult or personally attack anyone or any group. I specifically stated that I'm sick with most of the BS that happens and it's been my personal experince on this site about how One anti-4E rant can spawn a thread-crap load of Edition Warring. But fine, I completly agree that no side is without fault and we pro-4E people feed into it just as much. But really, I just don't see this sort of stuff on other sub-forums of Paizo other than here. It's a shame really.
Diffan, we've been dealing with Scott's act for years here. He has always been completely dismissively rude towards anyone who may have thought WotC wasn't doing as well as their facade presented itself, persistently "corrected" anyone who had a negative thing to say about 4e, and generally made himself a punch line. And he was wrong about almost everything, it turns out. The schadenfreude some people here are feeling after three years of him acting like 4e is his kid and he hates people picking on her is very powerful.
Perhaps it's because of Scott's penchant to take someone's post apart and point to specific things about it? Maybe that, to some people, comes off rude. I never really thought so though there are times it comes off snippy but really....it's more often that not because such posts aren't based on facts, things people who like to debate care about. A lot of Anti-4E stuff is mostly about "feelings" and circumstancial evidence. Do we know who really sells more. And by that I mean actually providing physical proof with the numbers?? NO, I don't think we could. We speculate and we hypothise that because they're crafting D&D:Next, that 4E didn't sell in the manner Hasbro wanted. That's all. Hasbro set the bar and 4E either met it, or didn't.
But lets take another point anti-4E people like to make (Classes feel the same). I posted a pretty lengthy response as to why this factually isn't true (Swordmage compared to the Fighter) and yet.....no response. So it comes down, again, to opinion. You don't like 4E. I do. Where do we stand? And no, this isn't me saying "don't post your opinions", but at LEAST understand that there are others who don't share them and attempting to debate with people where there is only opinion and often a grudge for what your opinion stands for....well it often is going to result in failure (for both).
|
|
Yeah, didn't want to pull that card. But he does respond to questions and is pretty cool about chatting on his wall with people about stuff. So, again, it isn't like he's sealed away from the world.
Someti8mes when he writes his articles irt just seems very one sided. Too much of " I want to seein 5E". I prefer my devs with a bit more impartiality. Then again it's not a big thing. Certainly not enough for me to discount 5E out of hand.
|
|
But lets take another point anti-4E people like to make (Classes feel the same). I posted a pretty lengthy response as to why this factually isn't true (Swordmage compared to the Fighter) and yet.....no response. So it comes down, again, to opinion. You don't like 4E. I do. Where do we stand? And no, this isn't me saying "don't post your opinions", but at LEAST understand that there are others who don't share them and attempting to debate with people where there is only opinion and often a grudge for what your opinion stands for....well it often is going to result in failure (for both).
+1
Diffan, if everyone would post as reasonably as you are now, we'd have nothing but reasonable conversation.
(You'll notice I left myself out of that sentence; I try to walk away from the screen when I care too much, but sometimes I fail at that and the world casts Polymorph: Douchebag on me; happens to us all, right?)
But a large part of civil conversation is recognizing your own opinions as such, rather than demanding justification for any that opposes yours while stating your own as end-all-be-all-truth. I'm not talking about your swordmage example anymore than my anchovy one, but when it does get to that point someone has to say so, right?
I guess what I'm saying is, if I do get to full of douchebaggery, just flag my post, the mods will know what to do...
Diffan: i am going to call out anyone that tries to say some one is wrong for having an opinion. If I see a post that says you are wrong for liking 4e, I will oppose that person as well.
|
|
Diffan, my thing is, I don't mind 4e. It's an ok game. It says D&D on the cover and was published by the people who own the IP, so it's D&D. I think it doesn't play like a fantasy game I'm accustomed to, I prefer 1e and play 3x/KF because that's what the people I want to game with are playing. But we play it more or less 1e style, with a DM who grew up in the same region and started playing at about the same time so it feels right to me. My primary deal with 4e is the minis. We prefer to play without, and mechanically 4e doesn't lend itself to that type of play. It's a little too positional for my tastes. Yes, I understand 3x isn't much better in that regard, but we can get full enjoyment by handwaving a bunch of stuff and just letting Kirth let us know where AoOs will occur and what areas are effected by spells. But an integral part of the 4e combat engine revolves around battle grid positioning, moving opponents to more advantageous attack angles, and stuff like that, and it's a pita to keep track of without minis.
Personally, I think the 4e engine would make an amazing superheroes game. Better than M&M I think. The cinematic action and powers paradigm lend itself well to that sort of thing, I think.
Scott and I have gotten along fairly well most of this time. I think I was reasonable during the "edition wars", because, honestly, who cares? It's a collection of books people use to make up stories. It isn't world hunger or going to prison or anything. Not that important. But, dude, 4e fans are so defensive that even when people genuinely ask a question, if it even sniffs of a previous post being critical of 4e, they'd go into attack mode. And, after the reaction non-converters to 4e got in places like the WotC boards, ENWorld and other boards, and how hostile those places were, this was the only refuge. Even P&PG got weird, and, to me, that is the friendliest place I've ever been on line. And it drove me to here, where I didn't have to hear it.
Paizo, in the middle of all this, decided to have a 4e forum here, because a) they're cool like that, and b) people like Scott were doing some really cool conversions of APs to 4e and otherwise adding to the breadth of the experience these boards have to offer. And, like you alluded to, the boards here left that corner of the universe in peace for the most part, with the occasional flare up. During that time, you couldn't even mention Pathfinder on some other boards without getting absolutely hammered, usually quite viciously, by just about everyone.
And the people here just shrugged and moved on. 95% of the threads about 4e were edition war free, and everyone was happy.
But, you know, we are geeks. We rage over all kinds of crap. And, in spite of the 4e fan's protestations to the contrary, the WotC marketing at the lead up and launch of 4e was deplorable to a segment of their customer base. A significant segment, actually. It was smug, insulting to old school players. and quite arrogant. And they made a lot of promises they couldn't back up. Have they launched the virtual table top yet? So, they left behind quite a bit of ill will in the aftermath. And, in marketing, perception is reality. It doesn't matter what WotC's intent was, the fact is a lot of people perceived the marketing as insulting. And that's all that matters. So, now that WotC is essentially eating crow and admitting they think they made a mistake, the segment they alienated is rejoicing. And some of them are pretty happy WotC has decided to attempt to go back to D&D's roots. Which, by the way, is good news for WotC. Positive interest. Some won't go back, but some never did after 2e, and some never moved to 3e. Big deal.
And, so now, the 4e folks are starting to understand a bit of how the 3e folks felt in '08. And guess what? I don't think they like it.
And, I'm disappointed because Scott is being obtuse and I think he feels a little stung because some of the nay sayers actually did hit exactly what was going on behind the curtain on the head. I mean, they've been planning this from '10, apparently? 4e didn't do what they planned on it doing. Probably half as well, if I had to guess, based on the relative numbers of PF/4e players (purely anecdotal and speculative). Which is awesome by RPG standards, but it isn't D&D standards.
So, having watched his body of work, I feel his recent posts have been quite condescending and snide. And I have no problem calling him out on it.
Back in my day, we didn't know Vancian casting from mana. Heck, there weren't no rules other than what the books said and what we made up as we went along. You think we printed up character sheets off the internets? There weren't no Kinko's back then, neither.
The only 9th level spells in the game belonged to magic-users, not some fancy-pants wizards. Clerics and illusionists got 7th, and that was it.
And what's up with the freakin' d12s? Weren't no need for them 'til the later editions with your barbarians and your greataxes. It was all a conspiracy to make us buy dice! And game mats!
Druids with 9th level spells? What in tarnation for? You folks are way too spoiled.
We didn't cotton to no fancy movement rules. You got what you got. And we liked it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Scott has stated before, as have many of the other 4E supporters, we are not upset over the new edition. A lot of us look forward to it just as much as we did 4E.
Yes customers were insulted by percieved wrongs in the advertising, and perception is reality. No they haven't delivered all the tools they promised,due to unforseen circumstances involving the company that ahd been setup to do the tools. Yes, some of the changes to the game offended players that consider them main staples of the name of the game itself.
The company, WOTC, and maybe in some part Hasbro, have done things that have upset the players of previous editions.
I came to these forums fairly recently (a year and half ago), and this is the first I've been to. But Paizo is not a Pathfinder community, they are the Paizo community that sell products from all different companies, to include WOTC products.
Since I have been here, and in fact my very first post, defend against unfounded claims about the edition I like. I have not seen any of the "4vengers" attack any other gamer's games, and are merely defending their own.
The process almost always, in the majority of any 4E reference I have seen here, follows a common pattern.
Topic started (unrelated to 4E)
One response includes a falsehood about 4E/WOTC without provocation
A defender of 4E corrects the falshood
The conversation goes off topic
The 4E defender gets ganged up on
The defender maintains their defense by showing how the initial falsehood is incorrect
Then the defender is accused of attacking others in a PF website because they don't like how they defend the falsehoods about a system they like that upset other gamers.
I mean really, if you go back and look at any of the times people accuse Scott of "attacking" others, he started with a correction of an attack they made about 4E/WOTC. Can he be grating or abrasive about how he does it, sure, but I can see how always being attacked for defending the system you prefer can get tiresome.
All in all, Scott has just been asking people to express what it is about the Vancian system that makes it better in their minds (Mechanically, Flavorfully, etc..), but I think it wasn't until Terquem actually broke down how it is for him on page 5 of the thread for anyone to have done so. He is looking for a reason beyond "Because I like it", like trying to see how gamers tick, and what it is that drives them to like it. He just may not be going about it the best way.
Then again, this may just get deleted. For some reason every time I try to make a point the post gets deleted as a response to another post as "its replies"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say orginaly I thought Scott was like what people say he is...and have accused him of such in other threads...but what he is saying is not all that terrible. He just absolutely believes in his opinions. I respect him for that. I may disagree with some of his posting habits. Anyway lets stop making this thread about Scott.
To answear Scott's earlier question about why I like the Vancian memorization (Also I agree with Scott the response 'I Just do' is useless in discussions...it is might be true...and I respect people who feel that way...but it is useless) the reasons are...
1) I like the challenge of picking the right spells. Or better yet finding the spells that are always useful...especialy with creative use.
2) I like the fact this system encourage people to think more. I really don't want a table top RPG where I don't have to think at all...I got computer games for that.
3) I like the challenge of picking 'wrongly' but still coming with ideas to fix the situration. Personaly I think people spend too much time bemoaning their errors instead of fixing them.
4) I like the fact at low levels I can not do something 'magical' every round. I don't want to play a character that mighty right at the gate...I like growing characters and having them start off as still learning.
Anyway that is all I can think of at the moment. I have played a ton of different games with different magic systems all of them have their problems....and all of them have things I love about them...personaly I am happy they have not discovered the 'One True' system...because that would be terribly boring.
I will say this the in fairness the Vancian memorization system does have one weakness...it is not easy on new players. Personaly I enjoyed the challenge even as a new player learning it...but there are some people out there who will not. For this reason I do have to question the designers on how they are going to make it newbie friendly if there are going to have this system as the default option...or the very basic option.
Anyway lets keep this a disscussion. Also please not the above reasons are preference and playstyle....and I don't condemn anyone for disagreeing with them.
I think Scott is asking for the "burden of proof" rather than "I feel this so that is that". I think we can safety say that legal training is at the root of how and what he posts. For me actually asking for evidence of an opinion/feeling is not being obtuse or argumentative....but that is just my opinion :)
Like John Kretzer (above) played many games, with many magic systems in the dim and distant past before life got in the way.
Why i like Vancian -
1) Depth of choice and flavor. I really like the number of spells and the flavor of spells like Bigbys Hand etc. You could get a similar effect in Rolemaster using the force or air lists (or other systems magic but nothing was like a Bigbys hand spell or magnificent mansion.
2) Resource management. Choosing spells is strategic. Balancing utility, buffing and offense with wands/staves was great and getting caught with my utility "list" in sudden combats made adventures challenging.
3) Made magic special and "big bang". Well until high levels where you were rocking spells and magic items a plenty. It does provide a balancing mechanic on magic, but that balance loses its bite in later levels.
4) Utility spells (related to 1). I do like utility spells that have non combat effects. Rituals in 4E are a halfway house, but i think they need to be made easier to use as we often have to use DM fiat to get players using them regularly. Hopefully 5E will make utility spells easier to use but not fill up adventuring spell slots.
Why I don't like Vancian
1) Miss and gone. I like in 4E that most spells have a miss rider so you don't waste a daily (a vancian cast if you will). I also like MP where if you miss you can at least "re-fire" the spell in the next round until your out of mana. I think 5E should have miss riders if spells are limited slots or a way to 2claim" back spells.
2) Magic, nope i have a shiny dagger. Like Diffan and others I got annoyed throwing daggers or attempting to help my team without magic or just stopping until spells are back. Pathfinder cantrips and 4E at wills are great (in my opinion), minor magic that allows you before the wand/stave arms race to contribute at low levels with the point of your class every encounter; "magic". if 5E brings in feats to do "at will" I will be happy.
3) Awesome COSMIC power (ittle, bitty living space). Some spells in vancian are just so awesome at high levels. i hope they can balance the flavor of these awesome spells with keeping martial characters in 2the game" (an old chestnut I know). Resource limitation via memorisation is not "big enough" maybe a damaging mechanic like above, rounds to cast, or other limits.
Anyway there is my "penny in the pot" as it were!
+1
But lets take another point anti-4E people like to make (Classes feel the same). I posted a pretty lengthy response as to why this factually isn't true (Swordmage compared to the Fighter) and yet.....no response. So it comes down, again, to opinion. You don't like 4E. I do. Where do we stand? And no, this isn't me saying "don't post your opinions", but at LEAST understand that there are others who don't share them and attempting to debate with people where there is only opinion and often a grudge for what your opinion stands for....well it often is going to result in failure (for both).
Well truth to be said there is a lot of mechanical "sameness" in powers, especially between powers in original books (not considering errata now).
Ranger has an attack that deals 1[W] form main and 1[W] from the off hand, rogue hass attack that deals 1[W] + Dexterity, Fighter has 1[W] + Strength.
Fighter and rogue have 1[W] + Ability mod damage.
Fighter, Rogue and Ranger have an attack that does about the same amount of damage (considering that d8 from an average is about 4.5 and good ability score modifier is about +4).
Depends on how close you look - sit a bit back and you'll probably see it too. A lot of the powers could be IMO roughly built from 30 or so building blocks like dX damage, 1[W], range X, Stun, pull ability modifier squares etc. Some of these are more common with certain roles (controllers getting area effects), some are more power source specific (arcane has more elemental damage occurence). Later books added more to the list, but that's about it.
The real difference is from unique abilities that fitted in two or three articles huddled before the mammoth power section, which turn on when the class does it's shtick. Do you wonder why it gets overlooked by people who just see the books and not the PCs in action?
Well truth to be said there is a lot of mechanical "sameness" in powers, especially between powers in original books (not considering errata now).Ranger has an attack that deals 1[W] form main and 1[W] from the off hand, rogue hass attack that deals 1[W] + Dexterity, Fighter has 1[W] + Strength.
Fighter and rogue have 1[W] + Ability mod damage.
Fighter, Rogue and Ranger have an attack that does about the same amount of damage (considering that d8 from an average is about 4.5 and good ability score modifier is about +4).
Depends on how close you look - sit a bit back and you'll probably see it too. A lot of the powers could be IMO roughly built from 30 or so building blocks like dX damage, 1[W], range X, Stun, pull ability modifier squares etc. Some of these are more common with certain roles (controllers getting area effects), some are more power source specific (arcane has more elemental damage occurence). Later books added more to the list, but that's about it.
The real difference is from unique abilities that fitted in two or three articles huddled before the mammoth power section, which turn on when the class does it's shtick. Do you wonder why it gets overlooked by people who just see the books and not the PCs in action?
Having largely played martial characters in 4E and previous editions, I see the differences because "powers" are just part of it. Lets take a 1st level Fighter (v3.5) and a Duskblade (PH2, v3.5). Both have a +1 BAB. If both have 18 in Strength, their main attack is +4. If both took Weapon Focus, it would be +5. They both can only move and attack once, dealing weapon + Str. mod damage. They're, for the most part, the same in the attacking sense.
Powers often have enough difference by themselves to make me say "oh, that's cool" and you couple that with class features which makes them even more different. The Ragner's Twin Strike is heavily regarded as THE MOST powerful attack in 4th Edition, and here's why: Rangers get multiple attempts at off-turn attacking and minor attacks. Rangers have ways of attacking 2, 3, 4, and 5 attempts per round when you factor in Twin Strike plus Immediate Interrupts, Minor Attacks, and Action Points. I don't care what the Rogue has, because he doesn't hold a candle. The rogue, well he's not as focused in this department as his "Striker" counterpart, he's more stealthy and mobile. His attacks add more effects like dazing, slow, immobilization, and the like. Where the Ranger rushed in and just starts pounding, the Rogue is more finesse and shifty.
Really, I found that it's less about what the powers do but how you use them and how they interact with your character's playstyle. So sure, a lot of powers often deal approx damage for their level, which to say isn't that big a strech from other editions where your only ever going to deal 1d8 + Strength with your character wielding a Longsword. You can factor in feats (which, for damage, theres's only two quick ways to improve damage) but I wouldn't say that changes the outcome very much.
...Having largely played martial characters in 4E and previous editions, I see the differences because "powers" are just part of it. Lets take a 1st level Fighter (v3.5) and a Duskblade (PH2, v3.5). Both have a +1 BAB. If both have 18 in Strength, their main attack is +4. If both took Weapon Focus, it would be +5. They both can only move and attack once, dealing weapon + Str. mod damage. They're, for the most part, the same in the attacking sense.
Powers often have enough difference by themselves to make me say "oh, that's cool" and you couple that with class features which makes them even more different. The Ragner's Twin Strike is heavily regarded as THE MOST powerful attack in 4th Edition, and here's why: Rangers get multiple attempts at off-turn attacking and minor attacks. Rangers have ways of attacking 2, 3, 4, and 5 attempts per round when you factor in Twin Strike plus Immediate Interrupts, Minor Attacks, and Action Points. I don't care what the Rogue has, because he doesn't hold a candle. The rogue, well he's not as focused in this department as his "Striker" counterpart, he's more stealthy and mobile. His attacks add more effects like dazing, slow, immobilization, and the like. Where the Ranger rushed in and just starts pounding, the Rogue is more finesse and shifty.
Really, I found that it's less about what the powers do but how you use them and how they interact with your character's playstyle. So sure, a lot of powers often deal approx damage for their level, which to say isn't that big a strech from other editions where your only ever going to deal 1d8 + Strength with your character wielding a Longsword. You can factor in feats (which, for damage, theres's only two quick ways to improve damage) but I wouldn't say that changes the outcome very much.
Well, I was just pointing to what was the most obvious sameness source IMO (personally I'd love to try to take the basic building blocks and give to each character a number of those to freely combine, along with limitations on how much of which they can put in there). Those two or so articles I mentioned earlier are actually those that give the interaction, like weapon mastery and marking of the fighter, sneak attacks from rogue and so on.
That's absolutely correct. "I just do," doesn't cut it. They can offer that up as their reason, but it's too much for them to expect that a reason like that will do anything to challenge the idea that this is a primarily nostalgia-driven preference.What is it about Vancian spellcasting that you think they prefer over all the other options out there?I obviously cannot speak for them...
But many have given an answer to that question. I just don't think you accept that answer...
And that answer being: they just do...
So why doesn't "they just do" cut it? Why do classic car enthusiasts prefer old-fashioned hot rods, cadillacs, etc. over today's obviously technologically superior cars? I mean c'mon, no GPS, no MP3 player, no heated seats, no rear-camera alert system, nothing but an engine in a body practically. Yet these "weirdos" take great pleasure in restoring and driving cars from the 1930's, 40's, etc.
Just because it's newer and shinier, doesn't mean people are going to switch up to it. There's probably no reason for Vancean to be preferred other than that people just prefer it; familiarity, comfort, etc. People like what they like for their own reasons, and if you can't accept that, then maybe you're the one with the problem?
It's not required at all. I put forth a theory for why we continue to see Vancian memorization in D&D, and I offered some conditions by which that theory might be challenged. You don't have to challenge that theory.Why continue to ask people to “prove” (my word’s not anyone else’s) that their preference for the system is founded upon predicates you will accept? When there is no directive that would impel anyone to believe that your acceptance of their preference is required?
Alright, screw it. MY reason for wanting Vancian back in 5e? Nostalgia. We're talking about a 30+ year old game; "nostalgia" is a pretty damn big part of this game.
Seriously, you claim to want the game to be the best it can be, but you want to rip out and gut what helped make it what it is. WotC already tried this 3 years ago. We saw how well that turned out; regardless of how good the actual system was, the devs were back at the drawing board 2 years in(5e development began in late 2010). 2 years in, and they were back at the drawing board.
Even for all of 4e's mechanical splendor and innovative ideas, the fact that they did all this to a decades-old game with a seriously ingrained and set-in-their-ways fanbase(quite prone to entitlement due to said decades of invested interest) was corporate suicide. Had a different company(or heck, even WotC) brought 4e out as a whole new game, and not as a new version of an old game, I'm of the opinion it would have been much, much better received by the gaming community. Had they just gone all-out and made it completely new(new pantheon, setting, etc) I'd bet it would not have had a fraction of the negative feedback it wound up getting.
Honestly, 4e's a good game. It's not the rules that sunk it, in my opinion, it was the radical departure it took that turned a lot of people against it. They absolutely tried the "New Coke" route, and the results were to be expected.
Face it, you're dealing with the gaming equivalent of elderly folks at a retirement home; set in their ways, self-entitled due to years of playing, age, etc. Now, walk in and tell them they can't watch their favorite shows anymore, they're gonna be watching Californication on HBO(or whatever new, hip, edgey show is on) because it's obviously newer and better. I think you seriously underestimate the power and justification of "nostalgia."
So why doesn't "they just do" cut it? Why do classic car enthusiasts prefer old-fashioned hot rods, cadillacs, etc. over today's obviously technologically superior cars? I mean c'mon, no GPS, no MP3 player, no heated seats, no rear-camera alert system, nothing but an engine in a body practically. Yet these "weirdos" take great pleasure in restoring and driving cars from the 1930's, 40's, etc.
That's a pretty bad analogy because antique and classic car enthusiasts understand that their likes aren't the norm nor are they asking car companies to produce those same cars now. It's one thing to enjoy an older car (or edition or spellcasting system) for the feeling it offers, but it's quite another to ask designers today to recreate them for that reason alone.
Just because it's newer and shinier, doesn't mean people are going to switch up to it. There's probably no reason for Vancean to be preferred other than that people just prefer it; familiarity, comfort, etc. People like what they like for their own reasons, and if you can't accept that, then maybe you're the one with the problem?
I think the reasons posted above by John, Jason, and Paedur are pretty good reason for them to like Vancian side from "just because". I don't agree with them, but it's a reason none the less. But i'll reiterate that it comes down to playstyle and expectations. If people expect the wizard to be a bit bumbling and limited at low levels and requires more effort on the player then Vancian casting could be more to your liking. If heavy doses of magic, blasting power, and unlimited magic (even if it's not as powerful) is more your think, then Vancian might come off as a hinderance.
Well, I was just pointing to what was the most obvious sameness source IMO (personally I'd love to try to take the basic building blocks and give to each character a number of those to freely combine, along with limitations on how much of which they can put in there). Those two or so articles I mentioned earlier are actually those that give the interaction, like weapon mastery and marking of the fighter, sneak attacks from rogue and so on.
I agree, a power's damage threshold is often looked at as being one and the same across the board and I think a lot of people overlook what the class offers aside from the power's it has access to. As for the building blocks, I had attepted (albiet, minimally) to create something called 4E source. Basically you chose a class at 1st level, like normal, but then expanded that upon all the powers of that Power Source. So if you grab a fighter you can learn and use any two Martial At-Wills, encounter, and daily powers. Of course, Abiity scores would remain in place, so a Rogue taking Twin Strike would still need to use Strength, a Fighter grabbing a Rogue power would need Dex and so forth. But it's way more free-form in design than one power for one class approach.
That's a pretty bad analogy because antique and classic car enthusiasts understand that their likes aren't the norm nor are they asking car companies to produce those same cars now. It's one thing to enjoy an older car (or edition or spellcasting system) for the feeling it offers, but it's quite another to ask designers today to recreate them for that reason alone.
So why doesn't "they just do" cut it? Why do classic car enthusiasts prefer old-fashioned hot rods, cadillacs, etc. over today's obviously technologically superior cars? I mean c'mon, no GPS, no MP3 player, no heated seats, no rear-camera alert system, nothing but an engine in a body practically. Yet these "weirdos" take great pleasure in restoring and driving cars from the 1930's, 40's, etc.
And tabletop RPG's are suddenly "the norm?" I was under a distinctively different impression. The likes of classic car enthusiasts are absolutely "the norm" amongst other classic car enthusiasts, the same way our likes are compared amongst other gaming enthusiasts.
Secondly, this time around the "car company" IS making the older style car(5e bringing back some old styles, Vancian, etc), so maybe it is a bit different?
I wasn't talking just about damage, the other building blocks repeat a lot as well. It's part of how the ballance was achieved.
What I meant as tricks was assigning each of the building blocks a point value and allowing the classes to make just the power they need on spot.
Something along the lines: At-will power/attack/exploit (whatever) = 3 pts, Encounter 5 pts, Daily 7 pts
You use one of your key abilities (STR or CON/DEX for typical fighter, STR and WIS/CHA for warlord etc.) to determine your power effects, attack bonus and so on
building blocks:
1[W] 1 pt
ABL (ability modifier) damage 1 pt
Shift 1 sq 1 pt
Push ABL sq 1 pt
Slide ABL sq 1 pt
Pull ABL sq 1 pt
+2 attack 1 pt
d6 elemental energy damage 1 pt (arcane)
Burst 2 sq 1 pt
Stun until the end of your next turn 2 pt
etc.
For miss effect subtract number of points you need to have desired effect from your normal effect, for at-will power you can subtract only 1 pt this way, for encounter power 2 pts, for daily 3 pts.
For Effect (happens no matter what) pay 1 pt and assign one building block 1 pt for at-will for encounter power 2 pts, for daily 3 pts.
(not perfect, but it shows the structure, some tricks could be role specific, some could be general - warlord could have access to weapon, ABL damage, and slide from general pool and empower ally (you spend action, someone else acts) from leader pool use them to recreate Commander's Strike by 1[W] damage + ABL damage + empower ally).
And this is exactly the kind of thing people mean when they say 4E classes work the same way. They have the same structure and the same mechanic.Obviously they play differently, but they play differently closer to the way a blaster sorcerer plays differently than a summoning-based sorcerer or a trip-based fighter plays differently than a two-handed DPS fighter, not the way a fighter plays differently than a sorcerer.
This is based off my experience with the Core books. I haven't played or really looked at much past that, so they may have changed it.
Yes, instead of having to specifically learning the nuiances of each class it's more broad in general terms. How is that a bad thing? Attacks are simpler: d20 + Ability score + yadda-yadda vs. a specific defense. The only thing they did was change up who rolls. In v3.5 it varied, from Fighters and Rogues having to roll to hit yet spellcasters just....cast and the defender rolls to see if he was hit. In 4E, everyone who attacks rolls. It's different but really not by that much. I see this as semantics and taste and not a huge difference in gameplay or game design. Espically with spells that all vary on Spell Resistance (*ugh*) or when a spell says meleee touch but not touch attack. Do you make one? Don't you because it doesn't specifically say?
I never would think this change would be dramatic at all, really it's just another view on how to work combat. But I'm a guy who likes simplicity where it's needed (IMO) instead of being diverse and unique all the time. It makes playing and learning new classes easier if the mechanics are all basically similiar.
I wasn't talking just about damage, the other building blocks repeat a lot as well. It's part of how the ballance was achieved.
What I meant as tricks was assigning each of the building blocks a point value and allowing the classes to make just the power they need on spot.
Something along the lines: At-will power/attack/exploit (whatever) = 3 pts, Encounter 5 pts, Daily 7 pts
You use one of your key abilities (STR or CON/DEX for typical fighter, STR and WIS/CHA for warlord etc.) to determine your power effects, attack bonus and so on
building blocks:
1[W] 1 pt
ABL (ability modifier) damage 1 pt
Shift 1 sq 1 pt
Push ABL sq 1 pt
Slide ABL sq 1 pt
Pull ABL sq 1 pt
+2 attack 1 pt
d6 elemental energy damage 1 pt (arcane)
Burst 2 sq 1 ptStun until the end of your next turn 2 pt
etc.For miss effect subtract number of points you need to have desired effect from your normal effect, for at-will power you can subtract only 1 pt this way, for encounter power 2 pts, for daily 3 pts.
For Effect (happens no matter what) pay 1 pt and assign one building block 1 pt for at-will for encounter power 2 pts, for daily 3 pts.
(not perfect, but it shows the structure, some tricks could be role specific, some could be general - warlord could have access to weapon, ABL damage, and slide from general pool and empower ally (you spend action, someone else acts) from leader pool use them to recreate Commander's Strike by 1[W] damage + ABL damage + empower ally).
that's actually a pretty damn good formula that I will positively use when making up new powers (or converting old 3E spells) and the like. Excellent job!
|
But lets take another point anti-4E people like to make (Classes feel the same). I posted a pretty lengthy response as to why this factually isn't true (Swordmage compared to the Fighter) and yet.....no response. So it comes down, again, to...
Diffan--
I did give you a response to this. I'm glad for you that you like 4E, and that you find sufficient differences in play between the various character classes. What you say about the classes and their powers being different? Yes, that's true, in that they don't use the same flavor text, they have some different effects... I'm not denying that there are some little differences (although I will misquote Star Wars here for effect: "So what you said was true... from a certain point of view"). Nonetheless, in playing 4E for over a year-- I found game-play for most of the different character varieties to be very much the same. Choose 2 from column A, 1 from column B, 1 from column C, 1 from column D-- you have a character. Got your at-wills, your encounters, have a few dailies you can haul out for the big fights... and it all seems to work out the same, over and over again.You can add to the issues that I have with the game, that the 4E games I played in emphasized combat and combat encounters much more than I like, and handled too many of the non-combat encounters the way the rules in the book lay them out (rolling for skill challenges and such)-- of course, I wasn't running the game; but I'm going to say in partial defense (and lack of defense) of the group's GM for one of the 4E campaigns-- he ran a pretty damn good game, using D&D 3.x, and now he's running a good PF game... his 4E campaign (to me, at any rate) wasn't so good, but given the other evidence I have, it's not because he's just a bad GM.
Characters in play still did not feel any different from each other to me-- and clearly I'm not the only one who felt that there was a bland "same-ness" in play to pretty much every variety of 4E character. A lot of the meta-gamed features for balance, added to the blandness for me (for instance, the handling of magic items-- same cost to buy it off the shelf as it is to make it yourself? Sale costs always the same? Pretty standardized list of items-- the bonus goes up as you get each higher-level version, but it starts boiling down to characters grabbing the same kinds of enhancers that are a common annoyance in some 3.x games). Now, if you like it, go for it-- but since we are talking about matters of personal preference and opinion, and individual experiences with the game-- my experience with it does not match yours, but that does not mean that either of us is necessarily wrong.
So-- to me, classes feel the same. I know they don't to you-- but don't try to tell me I'm wrong about what I experienced, and how the game feels to me.
Here's one way to keep spell-slot-by-level and fire-and-forget magic without sacrificing as much versatility and verisimilitude (not an ideal situation, but maybe a better one): let casters trade down their spell slots.
For instance, say a 6th level sorcerer can cast 4 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spells per day.
In the first encounter of the day, the sorcerer blows his 2nd level spells to locate and tag an invisible opponent with see invisibility and glitterdust.
The second encounter is with a particularly powerful incorporeal undead - maybe an advanced wraith. Knowing that force effects are far superior to an area blast in this instance, and not wanting to damage melee casters who are closing in with magic weapons to fight the wraith, the sorcerer exhausts his 1st-level spell slots casting magic missiles. But he needs to cast more, because the fighters are blowing their miss chance rolls and the wraith is eating them alive.
So the sorcerer burns his 3rd level spell to create TWO 2nd level spell slots. He then burns one of those newly generated 2nd level slots to get two more 1st level slots, letting him use magic missile twice more this day.
Now, I admit this system could be ripe for abuse because it would let you turn one spell into four... so maybe you place a limit on spell slot burning that only lets you do this for one slot per spell level.
It also doesn't address the disparity between prepared casters and spontaneous ones, but that's a whole other issue anyway.
Another solution I had thought about was allowing casters in a slot-by-spell-level system eventually gain mastery over certain spells or levels of spells. Maybe when you gain access to 4th level spells (using 9 total levels of spells as the measuring stick, even though I still think character level and spell level should be the same numerically to eliminate confusion for newbies), you get to pick one 1st level spell that you can cast at will. Then, when you gain 5th level spells, you get the same ability for one second level spell.
Striking the right balance to prevent an overpowered caster would be tough, but this would make caster players feel as though they aren't running out of options. And as a player, I hate the idea that because I am out of 1st level spell slots but still have all my 5th level slots left, I still can't fire off a basic attack spell like burning hands, chill touch, or magic missile.
(People asked for alternatives. I am proposing one. Perhaps this will spur meaningful discussion. *shrug*)
|
|
Even for all of 4e's mechanical splendor and innovative ideas, the fact that they did all this to a decades-old game with a seriously ingrained and set-in-their-ways fanbase(quite prone to entitlement due to said decades of invested interest) was corporate suicide.And yet it worked with 3e. Which trashed the traditional way saving throws work, skills worked, hit points/hit dice worked, multi-/dual-classing worked...
Not sure how to explain that to you, because yes, 3.x changed a lot of things about the traditional game, that had been constant from original D&D through AD&D/2. I think the consensus, such as it is, from old-time players who accepted 3.x, but still rejected 4E-- is something along the lines of "3E, even with all of the changes, still kept the same feel more or less... and kept enough of the constants in world-background and the way things work from the character's point of view; while the feeling of the game changed radically in 4E-- and from an in-character point of view, everything changed."
That was certainly my impression of the changeover. It's impossible for many of us, I think, to reconcile the way game-play worked all the way through 3.x for each of the different classes, with the change to at-will/encounter/daily/utility powers for all characters. The way I put it once, was something along the lines of "all this time I've been playing characters in a classic high fantasy tale, and all of a sudden I'm playing characters in an anime ninja-powers, 'Naruto', 'Dragonball Z' or 'Yu-Gi-Oh' manga universe" (before anyone goes off on that-- that's my impression and resulting opinion-- I am NOT insisting that it's any sort of "one true/correct view"-- also I do like a lot of Anime). It just feels like its a totally new game (to me anyway), where D&D 3.x (and now PF) does feel like an extension of the old one.
On top of that-- I've played a lot of different RPGs, and enjoyed many of them. I'm still regularly playing some of those other RPGs. Taken as a separate game, entirely on its own merits, not as a "new edition of D&D"-- 4E is not a game I like. I gave it a chance, a fair honest chance-- and I did not like the way it worked and the way the games went, so I appreciated it when one of the groups that I was in that tried 4E switched back to other games-- one campaign/group that I used to game with is still playing 4E-- but I'm not part of that campaign/group anymore, because I'd rather sit back with a good novel or have extra time for my studies than play 4E. I see the people I know and like from that group in a couple of other games anyway.
In this post, I genuinely mean no offense to those who like 4E-- it's just not my game.
Regarding the Vancian magic bit though-- I'm still following a lot of the discussion. Vancian magic has a long history with D&D, and it does present interesting challenges-- I think it ought to be included as one of the options for magic in the new game. I do not think it should be the only option for magic use in the new game. I'll call it a telling point, that in 3.x and PF, I play spontaneous-casting classes rather than the 'Vancian-memorization' or 'pray for your daily selection' classes. I'm frequently playing in games where both types of spell-caster are represented among the PCs, and it's kind of fun (as well as gives our group a chance to cover the relative weaknesses that each type of spell-caster has)-- so I see it as possible to include Vancian and non-Vancian magic in the same game and have it work out quite well. Since I'd prefer to play a non-Vancian caster in the new game (if it proves to be worth playing), I'd really like to see other options besides Vancian casting only included in the game.
Regarding 5E/D&D Next-- I think Monte Cook's a good game designer, and it gives me a little bit of hope that WotC will come out with a decent game, but I don't really trust WotC and Hasbro not to mess it up again within a few years in search of the instant/immediate profit, rather than long-term, sustained, but lower-key profits through maintaining/preserving relationships with the fan-base and keeping putting out a consistent, high-quality product. I trust Paizo to continue to do that... As others have already mentioned, Paizo is a business and has to make a profit to keep its doors open-- but being a small company without Hasborg's super-sized expectations placing pressure on every decision and action, Paizo seems to be able to get by without needing as large a profit margin as is expected of WotC-- and it's run by gamers who are answerable to other gamers, who care about the product they make as something more than just a profit-making enterprise (not that the people at WotC don't care about D&D-- I'm just pretty sure their overlords at Hasbro don't care about D&D that way).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point something out to the 4e fans. Very few people NOT in the 4e fold are clamoring for WotC to do anything. We weren't asking for 5e, we may have speculated on how long it would take WotC to scrap 4e and change editions, but we weren't asking WotC to do anything. They are pandering to US. We moved on. We play Pathfinder. We have a game that feels the way we want it to, has enough of the sacred cows we like to play like the D&D we know. We don't need 5e.
WotC seems to think 5e needs us, however. You want to complain about them taking a "step back", go complain to them. We're telling you why we don't play 4e. It doesn't matter if you accept our opinions, the fact is, your stridency and demands for "logical" opinions isn't going to sell one book for WotC. Not enough people liked/bought 4e for WotC to continue making it. It was the most divisive edition, by far, ever made. Our hobby is smaller than it was in the '80s (sorry, it's true, people who have actually seen the sales numbers from WotC 3x and TSR 1e have spoken, on these boards, on the matter), so dividing the base basically in half had to be devastating.
They need us back, we don't need them, so they're going to pander. That's how life works. Deal with it.
|
|
They need us back, we don't need them, so they're going to pander. That's how life works. Deal with it.
They are pandering to for better or worse. Does that mean that I should bend over backwards and smile and not say something. No. If I disagree with something they impement in 5E I will voice it. That's like saying that 3.5 fans should have said nothing during the PF playtest because they were pandering to fans of 3.5. Fortunately from the looks of it most people ignored that. I may not have a choice of what gets put or not in 5E for the most part I sure as hell will let them know of what I like and don't like of what they will include in it. As long as I'm civil and polite no one will remove my right to do so. No one and I mean no one here or anywhere is going to tell me otherwise. One of the few things about me that is not up for debate absoluterly non-negotiable.
Here's one way to keep spell-slot-by-level and fire-and-forget magic without sacrificing as much versatility and verisimilitude (not an ideal situation, but maybe a better one): let casters trade down their spell slots.
For instance, say a 6th level sorcerer can cast 4 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spells per day.
In the first encounter of the day, the sorcerer blows his 2nd level spells to locate and tag an invisible opponent with see invisibility and glitterdust.
The second encounter is with a particularly powerful incorporeal undead - maybe an advanced wraith. Knowing that force effects are far superior to an area blast in this instance, and not wanting to damage melee casters who are closing in with magic weapons to fight the wraith, the sorcerer exhausts his 1st-level spell slots casting magic missiles. But he needs to cast more, because the fighters are blowing their miss chance rolls and the wraith is eating them alive.
So the sorcerer burns his 3rd level spell to create TWO 2nd level spell slots. He then burns one of those newly generated 2nd level slots to get two more 1st level slots, letting him use magic missile twice more this day.
Now, I admit this system could be ripe for abuse because it would let you turn one spell into four... so maybe you place a limit on spell slot burning that only lets you do this for one slot per spell level.
It also doesn't address the disparity between prepared casters and spontaneous ones, but that's a whole other issue anyway.
Another solution I had thought about was allowing casters in a slot-by-spell-level system eventually gain mastery over certain spells or levels of spells. Maybe when you gain access to 4th level spells (using 9 total levels of spells as the measuring stick, even though I still think character level and spell level should be the same numerically to eliminate confusion for newbies), you get to pick one 1st level spell that you can cast at will. Then, when you gain 5th level spells, you get...
A couple of interesting ideas...I supose prepared casters get the option to trade down when preparing spells that day?
I would do it slightly differently as in if you traded a 3rd level spell you would get a extra 2nd level and a extra 1st. I might even allow people to trade up...using 2 1st level slots for a 1nd level slot...
A idea I had was to total of spell levels a caster gets during the day and let them prepared spells based on that...for instance a 5th level wizard with a Int of 18 would get 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 2 3rds for a total of 16 spell levels. He could prepare any number of spells that equal up to 16 spell levels....example he could have 5 3rd level spells and 1 1st level, or 16 1st level spells, or 3 1st levels, 5 2nd level spells and 1 3rd level spell or any combination they want.
Though the problem with such a system is it is even more newbie unfriendly...which I actualy see as a problem with what you suggested above. It makes it slightly more complicated not less.
...
that's actually a pretty damn good formula that I will positively use when making up new powers (or converting old 3E spells) and the like. Excellent job!
Thank you. I wanted to make a small subsystem that would bring about some versatility to characters, that could co-exist with the current system, which is quite stiffling unless you rely a lot on DM fiat (using difficulty/damage table to achieve an effect that you either just fired away or don't have at all). It also brings about a thing I was missing in monster creation - ability to ballance their powers and creation of new ones. I wish I had more time and will power to carry this thing through to create a true 4E LEGO ;)
|
If they're doing any pandering, it seems to me that it's more to fans of 0E, 1E, and 2E than it has been towards fans of 3.X.Glad I'm not the only one who is noticing this too. Which begs the question of "why?". You figure they would want to pander to 3E fans rather then older editions.
Well, as can be seen my quite a few examples in this very thread, it seems at least a sizeable portion of the 3.X/PFRPG community is going to be determined not to like 5E, regardless of what it actually comes out looking like.
They probably acknowledge that fighting over a 3.x based system with Paizo would only further splinter potential fans (at best). I'm not sure how they would go about recapturing the pre-3.x editions. All I've seen thus far are claims that the game will appeal to players of all previous editions. If they can find a way to pull that off, my hat will be off to them. It seems like too big of an undertaking though. I worry it will result in a butter-too-thin-spread scenario.