PDA

View Full Version : WOTC doesn't know their own game



taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:08 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050630a

I was struck by how clueless this article sounded to me. I mean, I am no char op guru but I see tons of terrible errors. for example:


Winning Ways: A warlock needs to have a high Charisma score because that ability governs his spellcasting. But high Charisma also gives him an edge in negotiations.

Charisma is a warlock's dump stat. There is literally not a single worthwhile spell that requires it. You don't need to meet a certain minimum value to cast spells, and it only improves the saving throws of your spells. Sounds good at first, but the warlock doesn't have any worthwhile spells that actually require saving throws (because he casts all his spells at will, they developers did not see fit to give him save or die / save or lose spells).

Also, the notion that charisma makes you a good party face is a joke. What makes a good party face is lots of social skills. Warlocks have terrible skillpoints, and lack some key social skills as class skills (ex, no diplomacy)


Good Will Saves: A warlock uses the best save progression in the game for Will saves (see Table 3-1 in the Player's Handbook). This natural mental strength helps him resist most effects that fool his mind or assault his spirit, including charms, compulsions, illusions, fear effects, and even inflict spells.
Not only inflict spells suck as anything but undead cures... this isn't really a "feature". it has a save, ok... so does every other character in the game.


Fair Weapon Selection: The warlock is proficient only with simple weaponry. Though simple weapons aren't the most deadly ones available, the fact that the warlock has access to the whole category gives him more options than most other arcane spellcasters have. That versatility can be a lifesaver if his spells happen to fail him.
Unlike other casters, warlocks don't run out of spell... it doesn't need a weapon.

Now as to what is missing:
UMD is referred to, but not mentioned by name, it is a huge and awesome power afforded to warlocks.

Unlimited flight at level 6 is plain awesome, and a very strong power. So is unlimited dispelling... invisibility, faster travel (path of shadows), baleful polymorph, foresight...
The warlock has a good selection of really awesome spells (and quite a lot of really worthless ones).

nekomata2
2010-06-29, 12:23 AM
From the Dead Levels article:


The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.

I agree with you.

Eldariel
2010-06-29, 12:25 AM
And this is news how? This is the reason the entire Core + early Completes are as effed up as they are. Seriously, we've got at least half a dozen books as a proof of them trying to play AD&D with 3.5 rules. And then there's horrors like CW Samurai. Oh, and someone should fire the editors of every single Faerun-book except like Unapproachable East.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:25 AM
From the Dead Levels article:

I agree with you.

Hilariously sad :P... I seem to have seen that quote before. It is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Tavar
2010-06-29, 12:31 AM
To be fair, those articles always list good saves/BaB as a positive feature. And compared to the alternative, I guess it is. But, yeah, they really didn't understand the game when they started out. And it's debatable if they ever really figured it out.

Daremonai
2010-06-29, 12:33 AM
From the Dead Levels article:



I agree with you.

Notice that at no point do they use the word "good" or "effective".

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:38 AM
Notice that at no point do they use the word "good" or "effective".

LOL!
you make a good point... they described the monk's abilities as "most colorful and unique"... not as "useful" or "effective"

Wonton
2010-06-29, 12:40 AM
To be fair, those articles always list good saves/BaB as a positive feature. And compared to the alternative, I guess it is. But, yeah, they really didn't understand the game when they started out. And it's debatable if they ever really figured it out.

Given how extensive 3.5 is, I would make the claim that no one can ever "figure it out". Hell, books haven't been published in 3 years, but people are still coming up with new and interesting builds all the time.


From the Dead Levels article:



I agree with you.

You win one internet. :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2010-06-29, 12:44 AM
A point we've covered many times on these boards: the entire purpose behind the 3rd edition of D&D was to have a game with AD&D-style play (blaster wizards, healbot clerics, etc) with a less complex, more versatile, and more balanced set of rules. It was only playtested as such - when played in an AD&D-style game, the core classes have practically no balance issues whatsoever. If you choose to play the game in a different manner than the way it was intended and manufactured by the designers, then it's on your head when it doesn't work.



The Monte Cook article about "deliberate bad choices to reward system mastery" is a load of BS to save face. Each of the designers I've talked to, and the one I'm related to, says differently.

EDIT: The point being - WotC knew the game they intended to make, and knows the game they want you to play (look at all the published material telling you to play healing clerics, druids who use their Wildshape for transport, spells for healing, and animal companion for scouting, and the stuff telling you to be a blaster caster). People are playing something totally different...thus it's not totally fair to rip WotC for giving you "official" advice that isn't about the game you're actually playing. You may was well rip into White Wolf for not giving you good advice either - both "official lines" have about the same relevance to the game that you're actually playing (that of the ubercharger, chaintripper, CoDzilla, and Batman).

Draz74
2010-06-29, 12:45 AM
Charisma is a warlock's dump stat. There is literally not a single worthwhile spell that requires it. You don't need to meet a certain minimum value to cast spells, and it only improves the saving throws of your spells. Sounds good at first, but the warlock doesn't have any worthwhile spells that actually require saving throws (because he casts all his spells at will, they developers did not see fit to give him save or die / save or lose spells).

Nitpick: There are some Eldritch Essences that have worthwhile save-or-suck effects attached to them. (Hey, I just read SilverClawShift's campaign journal about her Warlock character today, so don't try to dispute this point!)

arguskos
2010-06-29, 12:48 AM
*saysstuffthatdoesn'tmatter*
HOLY HELL SWORDGUY YOU ARE LIKE ALIVE AND STUFF! :smalleek:

Dude! Where've you been man?! You've been gone so long, I thought you got banned or something!

Tavar
2010-06-29, 12:51 AM
If you choose to play the game in a different manner than the way it was intended and manufactured by the designers, then it's on your head when it doesn't work.


I'm not entirely convinced that it works even with those assumptions in play. At least, not if you play enemies with anything approaching sapience.

Temotei
2010-06-29, 12:51 AM
I like how they call it spellcasting. Invocations don't exist anymore? :smallconfused:

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:51 AM
A point we've covered many times on these boards: the entire purpose behind the 3rd edition of D&D was to have a game with AD&D-style play (blaster wizards, healbot clerics, etc) with a less complex, more versatile, and more balanced set of rules. It was only playtested as such - when played in an AD&D-style game, the core classes have practically no balance issues whatsoever. If you choose to play the game in a different manner than the way it was intended and manufactured by the designers, then it's on your head when it doesn't work.

If they intended it to be this why, why did they create classes, spells, skills, and rules that are completely different than that?

Anyways, I actually did a playbypost game where the intent was to play "as WOTC intended"... I got to play the blaster wizard, called ray mcboom. we had cleric McHealbot, etc... Not the perfectly balanced game you claim it to be. Rogue and fighter got their butt handed to them, while my wizard one shotted entire encounters and proved great out of combat utility even without taking any utility spells (thanks to skill points).

I actually read a development journal that claimed nobody wanted to play cleric during play-testing because of the flavor of the class, fear of being heal-bots, and the restrictions on behavior (must stick to your alignment and god as played by DM), so they just beefed it up until "enough" people wanted to (talking about appealing to the wrong crowd)
So I wouldn't call it "perfectly balanced as intended"


Nitpick: There are some Eldritch Essences that have worthwhile save-or-suck effects attached to them. (Hey, I just read SilverClawShift's campaign journal about her Warlock character today, so don't try to dispute this point!)

name them. do keep in mind you have an extremely limited amount of spells known...

At first I thought the shatter at will one did... but it turns it doesn't (magic items are immune to shatter)

Tavar
2010-06-29, 12:57 AM
For shatter, not many people enchant pants. Or Hair ties. Really, there are a multitude of items that are never made magical, and each one gets a saving throw.

Swordguy
2010-06-29, 12:58 AM
HOLY HELL SWORDGUY YOU ARE LIKE ALIVE AND STUFF! :smalleek:

Dude! Where've you been man?! You've been gone so long, I thought you got banned or something!

No. Close though. Through a variety of red and yellow cards from the mods, I've come to realize that my attitudes and opinions on gaming and the fetishation of optimization simply don't mesh well with the vast majority of the people who frequent these forums, so I just don't post anymore...except in topics that intrigue me, that I can bring a unique viewpoint to (like this one), or ones in which I'm exceptionally qualified in which to post (Shadowrun and BattleTech threads almost exclusively, since I'm a Demo Agent for Catalyst Game Labs).

Mostly I just lurk (and quietly rage to myself when necessary, such as here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156489) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156155)). Not being logged in most of the time is a wonderful way to keep myself from posting something I'd regret - by the time I've logged back in, I've generally calmed down.

So yeah. Sorry man. Kinda nice to be missed, though. :smallamused:

arguskos
2010-06-29, 01:00 AM
Mostly I just lurk (and quietly rage to myself when necessary, such as here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156489) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156155)). Not being logged in most of the time is a wonderful way to keep myself from posting something I'd regret - by the time I've logged back in, I've generally calmed down.
Ah, yes, I seem to recall the long angry arguments that were all the rage a year ago that you seemed to get rolled up into. Good to see you still live though! :smallbiggrin:


So yeah. Sorry man. Kinda nice to be missed, though. :smallamused:
Welcome back. It's a lot tamer now, or well, it is for now anyways. :smallamused:

As for the topic, concerning class balance, if you actually play as they intended and do so Core-only, it does work (tested it a few times, I have). It's not really that enjoyable honestly, but it works.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:02 AM
For shatter, not many people enchant pants. Or Hair ties. Really, there are a multitude of items that are never made magical, and each one gets a saving throw.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm


Saving Throws
Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they always are affected by spells. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item’s Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + one-half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better.

1. Magic items are immune to shatter.
2. Non magic items always fail their saving throw automatically (making shatter a no save spell) unless being grasped, touched, or worn by a character.

that being said, upon further I think it actually DOES grant a saving throw if I target the weapon someone is wielding.

Tavar
2010-06-29, 01:04 AM
Or anything touching/on them. Which is everything that would trigger the save or suck portion of the invocation.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:06 AM
Or anything touching/on them. Which is everything that would trigger the save or suck portion of the invocation.

I don't see it... so I shatter the clothes of the person I am fighting... they become invisible (sorry, had to make that OOTS reference there :P)
No really, I shatter the clothes someone is wearing, its creepy and earns me some odd looks and comments... and has no effect in combat.
There is no suck part.
Only by shattering a weapon or armor do you benefit... problem is, unless the enemy is powerful enough to have magic weapon and armor (which are immune), then you don't really need it and it just wastes good money (loot).. believe me, I tried to use it. I shattered a bunch of weapons and armor... it was just more effective to kill the mooks and keep the loot, and anything worth shattering the weapons of had magic ones (which, btw, you wouldn't want to shatter since they are worth even more money)

Tavar
2010-06-29, 01:13 AM
Really? Huh, I'm away from that book right now, but groups I've been in have always had the shatter work if it hit anything the enemy had.

Swordgleam
2010-06-29, 01:17 AM
Or Hair ties.

As a girl with long hair who likes to swordfight, I can attest that the sudden loss of a hair tie should probably cause massive penalties to just about everything.

SurlySeraph
2010-06-29, 01:18 AM
And this is news how? This is the reason the entire Core + early Completes are as effed up as they are. Seriously, we've got at least half a dozen books as a proof of them trying to play AD&D with 3.5 rules. And then there's horrors like CW Samurai. Oh, and someone should fire the editors of every single Faerun-book except like Unapproachable East.

Because Craft Contingent Spell, Place Magic + Acorn of Far Travel (+ Sanctum Spell), Force Orb, and Valorous weapons are always reasonable. :smalltongue:

Granted, they're certainly nowhere near as bad as Incantatrix or circle magic, but it is a bit worrying that Unapproachable East is the best exemplar of balanced mechanics in the FR books.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:20 AM
As a girl with long hair who likes to swordfight, I can attest that the sudden loss of a hair tie should probably cause massive penalties to just about everything.

IRL... in fantasy long flowing hair does not impede combat at the least. :P

And how often do you fight a warrior who has long hair which is tied in a hair tie? (and uses only one, despite the risk... If I had to I would tied it with three separate ties, its cheap and protects against it tearing or something.)

Thajocoth
2010-06-29, 01:20 AM
They know what they were going for when designing the game, just not what they wound up creating.

JeminiZero
2010-06-29, 01:24 AM
name them. do keep in mind you have an extremely limited amount of spells known...

Off the top of my head, Charm, Bestow Curse, Eldritch Cone, Devil Whispers, Eldritch Doom, Utterdark Blast, Word of Changing, all benefit from having a good save DC.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:38 AM
Off the top of my head, Charm, Bestow Curse, Eldritch Cone, Devil Whispers, Eldritch Doom, Utterdark Blast, Word of Changing, all benefit from having a good save DC.

Keep in mind that a warlock knows a grand total of 3 least, 3 lesser, 3 greater, and 3 dark invocations by level 20. Even if you optimize your save DCs, you will still have a difficult time to get enemies to fail saves. especially later on when monsters have ridonculous saves... its better to just use no-save spells.

for the dark invocations for example, they have to compete with retributive invisibility, dark foresight, and path of shadow.

Baleful polymorph - granted this is the most tempting of the bunch, it is an at will save or lose. Hampered only by being so late to acquire, and by competing with such good other spells. (that, and your party will hate you if you use it)
Utterdark blast - also tempting, 2 negative levels per blast. (if failed save).

Curse: lose half actions sounds awesome... but it has a range of TOUCH (you are a squishy caster!)... and it competes with dispel, flight, dimension door, invisiblity, eldritch chain, and create undead... choose only 3 of those. frankly I don't think you can. I will invest a feat to get dispel, flight, dimension door, and invisibility (trade invisibility for chain when you can take greater invis)

Charm, Cone, and Eldritch Doom all suck.
What book is devil whispers from?

Those all require saves, but you shouldn't be taking most of them compare to some of the really awesome stuff warlock gets which doesn't require saves.
So you end up with literally a handful of good choices for spells.

Basically, you only need cha if you intend to trade great power elsewhere for baleful polymorph at will and utterdark blast.
mmm, although, in retrospect, utterdark will be ridiculously awesome for a glaivelock... 8 negative levels a round FTW.

So it seems I was wrong. For some specific builds CHA is useful. But I think for most it would be a dump stat.

Wonton
2010-06-29, 01:40 AM
A point we've covered many times on these boards: the entire purpose behind the 3rd edition of D&D was to have a game with AD&D-style play (blaster wizards, healbot clerics, etc) with a less complex, more versatile, and more balanced set of rules. It was only playtested as such - when played in an AD&D-style game, the core classes have practically no balance issues whatsoever. If you choose to play the game in a different manner than the way it was intended and manufactured by the designers, then it's on your head when it doesn't work.

The Monte Cook article about "deliberate bad choices to reward system mastery" is a load of BS to save face. Each of the designers I've talked to, and the one I'm related to, says differently.

This is fascinating stuff. Now I really want to read someone explaining all the design goals/problems each of the editions experienced. :smallsmile:

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:59 AM
actually I rescind my statement about cha being a legitimate choice for a warlock for certain builds...

since the only useful selections for it are Baleful polymorph and utterdark blast... which, while awesome:
1. Compete with other awesome stuff.
2. Still offer a save.
3. require a min level of 16. Vast majority of games will not get you to that high a level. And the rare few that are high powered enough to do so? well, for those you should play a wizard or cleric or some such instead of a warlock. And even if you disregard those two issues, you will NOT use it for the majority of your career. its too much of an investment (attribute wise), for something that only pans out at such a high level.

Doc Roc
2010-06-29, 02:03 AM
This is fascinating stuff. Now I really want to read someone explaining all the design goals/problems each of the editions experienced. :smallsmile:

The design of games is generally really cool! This stuff is particularly neat, but you should see some of the stuff that's gone down re: the dev of shadowrun. Regardless of how people feel about WotC did, the fact of the matter is that a "classic" party of supposedly appropriate level is going to get demolished by the majority of equivalently CR'd outsiders. Hezrou's a great example.

Gorgondantess
2010-06-29, 02:06 AM
For increasing stats, charisma with a warlock is useless. However, as a 3 level dip warlock can be awesome if you grab hideous blow, that one invocation that gives +6 to social skills, and take intimidating strike; +2d6 untyped damage and shaken with every melee hit, yes please. Here you might create some sort of gish, and charisma becomes an important stat, especially if you use the X stat to Y bonus boosters for it. It synergizes nicely with a lot of warlock abilities... and VERY nicely with a precocious apprentice fuelled sorcerer 1/warlock 4/Eldritch theurge.
That might actually be interesting... bard/warlock/eldritch theurge, with snowflake waterdance and a crystal sword, maybe a songbow... maybe even dipping into sublime chord to get higher level buffs, then going on with a few levels of abjurant champion...:smallbiggrin:

As for shatter, I've always felt it's about as useful as silent image- it's as good as your imagination allows it to be. Shatter the mounted enemy's saddle. Shatter the rock the giant is about to throw at you. Shatter the glass HOLDING the enemy's potion. Shatter the ladder/rope the BBEG is climbing up on his getaway. Who needs a rogue? Shatter the lock on the door. It's not useful in every battle, but I make sure every wizard I make has it in his spellbook, and it's a nice utility for a sorceror once you've got down goodies like invisibility and alter self.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 02:13 AM
As for shatter, I've always felt it's about as useful as silent image- it's as good as your imagination allows it to be. Shatter the mounted enemy's saddle. Shatter the rock the giant is about to throw at you. Shatter the glass HOLDING the enemy's potion. Shatter the ladder/rope the BBEG is climbing up on his getaway. Who needs a rogue? Shatter the lock on the door. It's not useful in every battle, but I make sure every wizard I make has it in his spellbook, and it's a nice utility for a sorceror once you've got down goodies like invisibility and alter self.

Shatter is a very useful spell... but most of the examples you gave do NOT offer a save and as such do not benefit from an increased DC. the question wasn't whether shatter is useful or not, but whether it is useful to boost the save DC against your shatter at will.

For example, I would shater whatever the rope is TIED to, that way I auto succeed with no save. (regardless of how high the save is, no save is better).

Shattering a lock is automatic success.

Shattering the rock the giant will throw:
1. require a readied action
2. can be accomplished without a save by shattering it as soon as it leaves his hand.

Shattering a saddle...
1. do you actually have line of effect? doesn't he provide cover to it?
2. admittedly that is a useful trick. and will actually require a save... but what is actually the handicap for riding bareback?

finally, shattering the potion the BBEG holds... only way to do that is via readied action... extremely unlike scenario. Normally the bbeg will draw and drink the potion on his turn.

PId6
2010-06-29, 02:15 AM
However, as a 3 level dip warlock can be awesome if you grab hideous blow
You mean Eldritch Glaive right? Tell me you mean Eldritch Glaive! :smalleek:

Zombimode
2010-06-29, 02:24 AM
It was only playtested as such - when played in an AD&D-style game, the core classes have practically no balance issues whatsoever.

Huh? What is this "AD&D-style game" you talk about? Im playing AD&D and I have had wizards in my group that knew only one blasting spell (burning hands), but ended encounters with only one spell (fireball? they just cast slow); clerics that didnt even knew a single healing spell (following the recomandation of the PHB to play with clerics of specific gods) but chucked around fire and summoned animals; and druids as one of the strongest and definately the most versatile class in the PHB (it helps if you dont stop by "B" when flipping through the monster manual in search of a combat form; this way you dont end up with "bear, black" but rather "wolverine, giant").

JeminiZero
2010-06-29, 02:25 AM
Keep in mind that a warlock knows a grand total of 3 least, 3 lesser, 3 greater, and 3 dark invocations by level 20.

Unless the Warlock is loading up on Extra Invocation. :smallbiggrin:


So it seems I was wrong. For some specific builds CHA is useful. But I think for most it would be a dump stat.

Also worthwhile noting are the Eldritch Theurge and other adapted PrCs (e.g. Allowing Warlocks to qualify for Anima Mage with Binder). Since, a Warlock can use some of their abilities to take the pressure of his invocs. E.g. Dispel is usually situational and might be better saved for spell slots.


for the dark invocations for example, they have to compete with retributive invisibility, dark foresight, and path of shadow..

There is also Impenetrable Barrier (Dragon Magic).

taltamir
2010-06-29, 02:28 AM
You mean Eldritch Glaive right? Tell me you mean Eldritch Glaive! :smalleek:

to expand... hideous blow is a hideous trap and hideously sucks.
You see, hideous blow takes 1 round to cast, and is discharged the first time you hit something.

So, lets say you have two rounds...
without hideous blow:
round 1: make a range touch attack to hit someone with an eldritch blast.
round 2: make a melee attack for regular damage.

with hideous blow:
round 1: cast hideous blow
round 2: make a melee attack, if one of the hits connects, you deal regular damage, plus the damage you would have dealt by using a regular blast. only now you used a normal attack instead of a touch attack... and had to be in melee, and didn't do damage on the first round.

It is a downgrade in every way.
Glaive on the other hand let you conjure up a glaive made out of eldritch energy, it has reach, it lets you perform as many attacks as your BAB allows (so, as many as 4 with haste), they are all touch attacks (so you don't miss), and they all apply whatever modification you are using and deal full blast damage which is ((level+1)/2) * d6.

So, say hello to 15d6 + 2 negative levels per hit combined with 4+ attacks a round (AoO, cleave, etc)

Killer Angel
2010-06-29, 02:37 AM
I'm not entirely convinced that it works even with those assumptions in play. At least, not if you play enemies with anything approaching sapience.

I suppose that WotC point is, those assumptions should work for all the players, including the DM that should use blaster wizards as BBEG.
If all the peoples involved play "as intended", the game is more or less balanced.
But the given options are so many, that it's practically impossible to play "as intended".

Forever Curious
2010-06-29, 02:40 AM
...but I like the Charm and Shatter invocations... what's so bad about them?

Especially if you take Ability Focus and Empower/Maximize/Quicken Spell-like Ability feats.

But this is coming from someone who exclusively plays Tier 3 or lower characters and hates prepared spell casting, so yeah...

The Mentalist
2010-06-29, 02:54 AM
...but I like the Charm and Shatter invocations... what's so bad about them?

Especially if you take Ability Focus and Empower/Maximize/Quicken Spell-like Ability feats.

But this is coming from someone who exclusively plays Tier 3 or lower characters and hates prepared spell casting, so yeah...

There's nothing really bad about them they're just not the most optimal choice. Fun comes before Char Op though (and if you can mix both that's just wonderful)

Draz74
2010-06-29, 03:26 AM
name them. do keep in mind you have an extremely limited amount of spells known...

Besides the obvious Utterdark Blast, I mostly had Repelling Blast in mind. Was very important several times in the campaign journal I've been reading ... and is a staple of the battlefield control-focused Warlock style that uses mostly Repelling Blast and Chilling Tentacles (and the wall of fire one).

Matthew
2010-06-29, 07:03 AM
Bear in mind that Wizards of the Coast is a corporation with a relatively fast staff turnover. Saying "WotC does not understand D20/3e" is somewhat misleading in that the company has no understanding, but it is true that many of their designers, developers and editors [i.e. the guys who create and vet the rules, both past and present] appear to demonstrate a limited grasp of the the system. The presentation of "iconic" characters, such as Drizzt, strongly gives that impression.

There are basically two explanations commonly given for why this is so. The first is as SwordGuy indicates, that the system was designed with different expectations than those prevalent on internet forums. If this is the case, then we have to also accept that in seven years of expansion they never really came to terms with how the system was being gamed online, and possibly did not care because the majority of their audience is not "hardcore". The second is the one SwordGuy refutes, which is that they purposefully designed the game to reward optimisation, and that they continued to do so with every addition to the system.

Probably, the truth is a conglomeration of both explanations, as we do see attempts to grapple with various concerns in the books, and we also see choices given that are simply better than others. I suspect that Wizards of the Coast largely employs creative people who are not as interested in the mathematics behind D20/3e as what they can do with the system.

As far as it goes, I will say I have been playing Atari's conversion of the Temple of Elemental Evil lately, and so far the fighter, ranger, and bard have contributed way more to the success of the party than the cleric or sorcerer. It is pretty telling that the fight is over if the fighter goes down. Of course, that has only been true up to level four so far (no magical weapons or armour yet either). :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2010-06-29, 07:11 AM
There are basically two explanations commonly given for why this is so. The first is as SwordGuy indicates, that the system was designed with different expectations than those prevalent on internet forums. If this is the case, then we have to also accept that in seven years of expansion they never really came to terms with how the system was being gamed online, and possibly did not care because the majority of their audience is not "hardcore". The second is the one SwordGuy refutes, which is that they purposefully designed the game to reward optimisation, and that they continued to do so with every addition to the system.

To be totally honest, I can see the second portion coming more and more to the fore as the game progressed. Towards the end of the 3e publishing lifecycle, I think it did start to be designed under the premise of "rewarding system mastery" - largely due to the feedback they got via the CharOp forums and so forth. What I object to and attempt (vainly, it often seems) to refute is that the entire premise behind 3e from the beginning
was this incredible machiavellian plot to deliberately mislead new players into taking suboptimal choices and killing them off until they saw the light and started really trying opti-fu by buying all the books and comparing options, etc.

The latter theory meshes not at all with the first several years of published material, every bit of advice given to players through official channels, and most dammingly, the direct words of the people who were connected to the 3e development (with the exception of Monte Cook). If given the chance to decide if something goes wrong as a result of ignorance and/or gross stupidity, or via some sort of conspiracy, well...I'll go with the ignorance/stupidity option almost every time.

Runestar
2010-06-29, 07:30 AM
Wotc designers have demonstrated from time to time that they are aware of the problems plaguing 3e gameplay, but the problem seems to be their so-called fixes seem very superficial, and fail to tackle the root of the problem.

So I think they know there is something wrong with their classes, but close one eye because they can't do anything about it. I mean, imagine them condemning the monk and fighter in an online article, but without offering a viable alternative save for "don't play one". It won't reflect well on them and their products. "Hey, you know your stuff is crap, but you feed them to us nonetheless?" :smallmad:

To their credit, they attempted to fix the druid in PHB2 (and succeeded quite admirably, IMO).

The monsters in MM3-5 are noticeably more optimized compared to MM, and the latter boasts some radical design overhauls, such as the climatic 5-round encounter guideline and higher-lv monsters getting multi-hitting attacks which engage the entire party, rather than always 1-shotting the fighter.

Not to mention that when 4e was announced, they promptly started criticising all the aspects they felt were wrong with 3e, aspects which just a few months ago, they were still praising or supporting with supplements. So the treasure generation guidelines is gospel when printed in MIC but suddenly crap when compared to the revised guidelines in 4e? :smallfurious:

Snake-Aes
2010-06-29, 07:33 AM
This very statement will be repeated on the first major revision of 4e, and probably again on 5e.

The thing is: They are a finite number of people. They cannot think of all we can because we are magnitudes more numerous.

Renegade Paladin
2010-06-29, 07:42 AM
As a girl with long hair who likes to swordfight, I can attest that the sudden loss of a hair tie should probably cause massive penalties to just about everything.
What weapon form/style? :smallsmile:

As for the thread topic, yeah, this isn't news. I mean, just read the build advice they put into their own books. The game was never playtested properly.

Mongoose87
2010-06-29, 07:52 AM
to expand... hideous blow is a hideous trap and hideously sucks.


I think you mean it hideously blows.


:smallcool:


YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-29, 08:08 AM
If given the chance to decide if something goes wrong as a result of ignorance and/or gross stupidity, or via some sort of conspiracy, well...I'll go with the ignorance/stupidity option almost every time.

Kaiyanwang and William of Ockham agree with you here.

*Reads Mongoose87 pun*

*cast meteor swarm* :smalltongue:

Gnaeus
2010-06-29, 08:15 AM
As far as it goes, I will say I have been playing Atari's conversion of the Temple of Elemental Evil lately, and so far the fighter, ranger, and bard have contributed way more to the success of the party than the cleric or sorcerer. It is pretty telling that the fight is over if the fighter goes down. Of course, that has only been true up to level four so far (no magical weapons or armour yet either). :smallbiggrin:

While a fun game, ToEE does not accurately reflect a tabletop game. To give a single level 4 example, a 3.5 sorcerer can Alter Self into a flying critter and solo any wilderness/large room encounter where the monsters lack ranged attacks. ToEE doesn't allow flight IIRC. A computer game, by reducing the playable options, weakens casters (who have options) far more than fighters (who don't).

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 08:16 AM
Charisma is a warlock's dump stat. There is literally not a single worthwhile spell that requires it.

Assuming you meant invocation rather than spell - Utterdark Blast :smalltongue:

They also get a lot of mileage out of UMD, and more Cha can only help there; particularly if you make a habit of UMD-ing divine spells.

It's definitely not necessary, but it is one way to build a Warlock, not the wrong way.


The thing is: They are a finite number of people. They cannot think of all we can because we are magnitudes more numerous.

Yet, as this and other message boards have shown, we are more than willing to share our findings with them. After all, we love this game. So why aren't they listening to us?

Swordguy
2010-06-29, 08:51 AM
Yet, as this and other message boards have shown, we are more than willing to share our findings with them. After all, we love this game. So why aren't they listening to us?

Simple answer. Lawyers. (I use Catalyst as an example, because it's the game company I know best.)

Multiple times over the years, "fans" of games have sued game companies for control over the property. Why? Because the game designers saw an idea or theory they liked on a message board and decided to incorporate it into their game rules and/or universe. Most of the time, this results in the fan saying "cool!". Some of the time, it results in the fan saying, "you owe me money for my ideas". Then the lawyers come out.

Catalyst has been sued so many times over the last decade regarding this (eight, by my last count), that they've instituted a policy of simply not accepting ANY unsolicited advice on ANYTHING related to BattleTech. If you send a story idea or a product outline to the Line Developer, it's deleted sight-unseen. There was even a fan who recently tried to gain control over the entirety of the BattleTech IP because he wrote two paragraphs that made it into an unofficial publication from the company, after he was deliberately solicited to do so. It's gotten bad enough that I know for a fact that writers for several companies, AEG and CGL included, aren't even allowed to look at "homebrew" forums, lest they see something that they later subconsciously decide to include in a canon publication.

There are a few companies that don't do this - Fantasy Flight Games being the major one I can think of. They've been known to "borrow" amusing stuff off of 4chan's /tg/ board...but since that's anonymous posting anyway, it automatically enters the public domain as soon as it's posted, so they have a strong legal ground. A message board that ties a user to a given login grants the user some legal control over what he posts, regardless of the disclaimer you sign when you register (assuming it's a US-based board, and assuming you have a good lawyer).

In short, it's easier and a heck of a lot cheaper (in legal fees) to simply not let fans help out in any way shape or form. Keep it in-house, and you avoid all this insanity. I believe the apropos phrase is "this is why we can't have nice things." :smallfrown:

Matthew
2010-06-29, 09:07 AM
To be totally honest, I can see the second portion coming more and more to the fore as the game progressed. Towards the end of the 3e publishing lifecycle, I think it did start to be designed under the premise of "rewarding system mastery" - largely due to the feedback they got via the CharOp forums and so forth. What I object to and attempt (vainly, it often seems) to refute is that the entire premise behind 3e from the beginning was this incredible machiavellian plot to deliberately mislead new players into taking suboptimal choices and killing them off until they saw the light and started really trying opti-fu by buying all the books and comparing options, etc.

The latter theory meshes not at all with the first several years of published material, every bit of advice given to players through official channels, and most dammingly, the direct words of the people who were connected to the 3e development (with the exception of Monte Cook). If given the chance to decide if something goes wrong as a result of ignorance and/or gross stupidity, or via some sort of conspiracy, well...I'll go with the ignorance/stupidity option almost every time.

I more or less agree. With these things it is futile to try and distil the cause down to one particular thing at one point. A "grand master plan" seems unlikely to me, but that some degree of concern for "system mastery" existed from the beginning in the minds of some designers seems plausible to me, and as you say, the idea gained ground as the years went by.



While a fun game, ToEE does not accurately reflect a tabletop game. To give a single level 4 example, a 3.5 sorcerer can Alter Self into a flying critter and solo any wilderness/large room encounter where the monsters lack ranged attacks. ToEE doesn't allow flight IIRC. A computer game, by reducing the playable options, weakens casters (who have options) far more than fighters (who don't).

Sure, that is why I began that paragraph with "as far as it goes" and ended it with a smiley. :smallwink:

taltamir
2010-06-29, 09:13 AM
As far as it goes, I will say I have been playing Atari's conversion of the Temple of Elemental Evil lately, and so far the fighter, ranger, and bard have contributed way more to the success of the party than the cleric or sorcerer. It is pretty telling that the fight is over if the fighter goes down. Of course, that has only been true up to level four so far (no magical weapons or armour yet either). :smallbiggrin:

http://www.co8.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8045
Tales of a Tal Tamir's Lone Elf Wizard (in the game you described)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150857

It is a hardcore DnD game where most people need 5PC and the 3 NPC allowed, and still often die or cant handle the encounter types... TPK is easy...

but a well played single wizard was able to go far (I got him up to level 10 and a good bit into the story, never finished it though).

And keep in mind that the game include huge massive nerfs for full casters. for example, flight doesn't exist.


I suppose that WotC point is, those assumptions should work for all the players, including the DM that should use blaster wizards as BBEG.
If all the peoples involved play "as intended", the game is more or less balanced.
But the given options are so many, that it's practically impossible to play "as intended".

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133816
IC-Wizard of the coast "intended class" challenge!

Balanced? I don't think so.


Wotc designers have demonstrated from time to time that they are aware of the problems plaguing 3e gameplay, but the problem seems to be their so-called fixes seem very superficial, and fail to tackle the root of the problem.

WOTC has tackled the root of the problem in 4e. They gave each class an equal amount of "at will", "per encounter" and "daily" powers. Getting rid of the idea that limiting awesome spell of awesomeness to 1/day somehow balanced it against at will abilities that are significantly weaker.

And they also got rid of superfluous to combat classes. (now every class has a combat role)

That isn't to say that they succeeded or that 4e is better/worse, but that they were aware of some deeply ingrained problems and were willing to try major changes to fix them. (they just want you to pay for such major revisions)


was this incredible machiavellian plot to deliberately mislead new players into taking suboptimal choices and killing them off until they saw the light and started really trying opti-fu by buying all the books and comparing options, etc.

I think they are just trying to sell books... the idea is, the more books you own, the more powerful your characters are, thanks to power creep.


I think you mean it hideously blows.

have a cookie!

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 09:27 AM
Catalyst has been sued so many times over the last decade regarding this (eight, by my last count), that they've instituted a policy of simply not accepting ANY unsolicited advice on ANYTHING related to BattleTech. If you send a story idea or a product outline to the Line Developer, it's deleted sight-unseen.

The key word there, is "unsolicited."

Yes, just combing message boards for ideas is not smart for any company. But it is quite possible to protect oneself, and deliver a high quality product, with the right disclaimers.

Consider Magic: the Gathering (also a WotC product) and their various community activities - i.e. the Invitationals and You Create the Card. The former has them take ideas from skilled individuals and incorporate them into the game; the latter has them poll the entire community and generate new cards from their suggestions.

With those, they have struck a balance - protecting their IP, while still allowing the community to contribute. And every (http://magiccards.info/mi/en/245.html) last (http://magiccards.info/tsts/en/99.html) invitational (http://magiccards.info/ts/en/274.html) card (http://magiccards.info/ps/en/116.html) has been good. Powerful without being broken, and tournament staples to this day, particularly those that rotate.

Now - what is stopping the D&D folks from inviting those players they know are good at homebrew? WE know who those people are, so WotC should as well.

It seems to me that having their lawyers come up with the various protections necessary to allow community input into their games is a much better use of their legal dollar than having them sit around on retainer while great feedback is sent to the recycle bin daily. Best of all, they can still delete unsolicited contributions "sight unseen" as nothing outside of the official channels will ever make it into the final product.

Matthew
2010-06-29, 09:29 AM
Tales of a Tal Tamir's Lone Elf Wizard (http://www.co8.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8045) (in the game you described)

It is a hardcore DnD game where most people need 5PC and the 3 NPC allowed, and still often die or cant handle the encounter types... TPK is easy...

but a well played single wizard was able to go far (I got him up to level 10 and a good bit into the story, never finished it though).

Yep, that is also very typical in the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games, but I think it has more to do with the rapidity of levelling because experience is not divided than it does with class choice. Heck, if you are only playing one character you can probably hit level 4 before ever leaving Hommlet, but one level 10 character is not likely going to be very successful later on (the level caps can be released, of course, in which case you might solo the whole dungeon, as Robilar apparently did in the actual Gygax campaign).



I think they are just trying to sell books... the idea is, the more books you own, the more powerful your characters are, thanks to power creep.
No doubt in my mind about that. :smallbiggrin:

taltamir
2010-06-29, 09:29 AM
The key word there, is "unsolicited."

*stuff*

Exactly...


Yep, that is also very typical in the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games, but I think it has more to do with the rapidity of levelling because experience is not divided than it does with class choice. Heck, if you are only playing one character you can probably hit level 4 before ever leaving Hommlet, but one level 10 character is not likely going to be very successful later on (the level caps can be released, of course, in which case you might solo the whole dungeon, as Robilar apparently did in the actual Gygax campaign).

Actually, I left homlet as level 1... keep in mind that homlet has a bunch of skill based quests... as a lone wizard I did not have the skills to finish any of those.


Assuming you meant invocation rather than spell - Utterdark Blast :smalltongue:

see this post http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8807897&postcount=29

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 09:43 AM
Thanks for having my back taltamir.


see this post http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8807897&postcount=29

Those aren't the only ones either. Dark One's Own Luck gets great with high Charisma, as does Beguiling Influence. Tenacious Plague is also great debuff/battlefield control (remember, you get an additional swarm every 3 levels). I'm also a big fan of Repelling Blast.

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 09:56 AM
Now - what is stopping the D&D folks from inviting those players they know are good at homebrew?

Probably the fact that MTG makes more money than D&D does.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 09:59 AM
Probably the fact that MTG makes more money than D&D does.

People are already homebrewing for free.

valadil
2010-06-29, 10:09 AM
No. Close though. Through a variety of red and yellow cards from the mods, I've come to realize that my attitudes and opinions on gaming and the fetishation of optimization simply don't mesh well with the vast majority of the people who frequent these forums, so I just don't post anymore...

That makes me sad :(


As a girl with long hair who likes to swordfight, I can attest that the sudden loss of a hair tie should probably cause massive penalties to just about everything.

Have you considered a braid?


Simple answer. Lawyers. (I use Catalyst as an example, because it's the game company I know best.)

Multiple times over the years, "fans" of games have sued game companies for control over the property. Why? Because the game designers saw an idea or theory they liked on a message board and decided to incorporate it into their game rules and/or universe. Most of the time, this results in the fan saying "cool!". Some of the time, it results in the fan saying, "you owe me money for my ideas". Then the lawyers come out.


This isn't limited to gaming companies. George R.R. Martin has an awesome rant (http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html) up about how authors have been sued by fan fiction writers who feel the author is stealing their ideas to put back into his own books.

Matthew
2010-06-29, 10:31 AM
Actually, I left Hommlet as level 1... keep in mind that Hommlet has a bunch of skill based quests... as a lone wizard I did not have the skills to finish any of those.

Very true; I just had a crack at it with Regdar and managed to scrounge up 1,000 EP in Hommlet, then another 2,000 or so killing giant frogs outside of the Moat House. I reckon I could make a good go of it with a fighter, should at least be a bit of fun. :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 10:34 AM
This isn't limited to gaming companies. George R.R. Martin has an awesome rant (http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html) up about how authors have been sued by fan fiction writers who feel the author is stealing their ideas to put back into his own books.

I'm aware of and fully support his position, but I also think there is a world of difference between just allowing fan fiction or other fan-created works, and providing an official channel for knowledgeable community members to provide input in the design process. (Complete with disclaimers that basically read, "by submitting your idea via this system, you consign all rights to modify, publish, reproduce etc. said idea to us.")

Darklord Xavez
2010-06-29, 10:39 AM
From the Dead Levels article:



I agree with you.

Dead Levels is highly annoying. There's nothing useful in it that I have found, due to the fact that most classes are balanced already, the bonus to ability checks for the fighter is utterly useless, and it doesn't improve the classes that need it (like the monk).
-Xavez

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 10:40 AM
People are already homebrewing for free.
True enough, but lawyers are quite expensive, D&D might not make enough money to warrant spending lawyer resources on such a public contribution system.

Also, as I recall, when Magic's public contribution system was set up, WOTC was in charge; now, Hasbro is. That may make all the difference.

I do think that fans suing companies or authors like this is rather stupid; I am reminded of those people that feel Terry Pratchett's books are a copyright infringement of J.K.Rowling's, because both of them contain a wizard school.

Greenish
2010-06-29, 10:43 AM
I am reminded of those people that feel Terry Pratchett's books are a copyright infringement of J.K.Rowling's, because both of them contain a wizard school.I say to you: NO WAI! :smallconfused:

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 10:51 AM
True enough, but lawyers are quite expensive, D&D might not make enough money to warrant spending lawyer resources on such a public contribution system.

They are already spending that money. Their legal department does not all get fired when there is no active suit and rehired when there is.

Furthermore, they have the framework in place - again, whatever disclaimer the Invitational winners have to sign to contribute their ideas. Co-opt the document, change some words, done. Everybody wins.


Also, as I recall, when Magic's public contribution system was set up, WOTC was in charge; now, Hasbro is. That may make all the difference.

The invitationals continued under Hasbro's leadership - they bought WotC in 1999, yet invitationals continued as far as Time Spiral in 2006 (possibly longer, I've been out of the scene.)

As far as I can tell, there were no lawsuits over any of them, either.

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 10:58 AM
Also: I found George Martin's post interesting. Does anyone have a link for Diane's post that he mentions? It seems to be no longer on her blog.

Tavar
2010-06-29, 10:59 AM
I say to you: NO WAI! :smallconfused:

Yeah. It's odd to me too.

As for fanfiction, personally I think it's great, as long as the creator surrenders all rights to it. Yeah, the sueing is insane, but it seems like that simple method would give the suer no legs to stand on.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-06-29, 11:04 AM
Also: I found George Martin's post interesting. Does anyone have a link for Diane's post that he mentions? It seems to be no longer on her blog.
She has taken it down, but the Internet never forgets. (http://kate-nepveu.livejournal.com/483239.html)

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 11:07 AM
Yeah. It's odd to me too.
It's even funnier if you check the respective release dates of The Colour Of Magic, and of HP&Philosopher's Stone...



As for fanfiction, personally I think it's great, as long as the creator surrenders all rights to it. Yeah, the sueing is insane, but it seems like that simple method would give the suer no legs to stand on.
I assume you mean the creator of the fanfic surrenders all rights? I think there's two problems with that. First, it's tricky for them to legally surrender those rights if they never had those rights in the first place. And second, this sentiment is (perhaps surprisingly) less common among fanfic authors than it should be. I've spoken to numerous fanfic authors who are very protective of "their" property, to the point where they want to sue subsequent fanfic authors for "stealing their idea"...

(edit) Thanks, OH!

Prime32
2010-06-29, 11:19 AM
Martin gives the impression in that blog that all he views all fanfic as canon, and is frustrated because fanfic writers are controlling what he writes in his books. :smallconfused: (especially since he's fine with the idea of a blatant ripoff that changes the names)

He freaks out when someone writes something about one of his characters acting in a silly way, yet real people are parodied all the time. The line here can get blurry between versus threads, fanfic and RP - are we forbidden from discussing whether a character would act in a certain way in a certain situation?

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 11:33 AM
As I said, I support GRRM's position, because copyright holders are placed in the very unenviable position of being assumed to have forfeited their copyright if they don't defend it.

The Giant himself has said the same thing (concerning his artwork) - that if he does not pursue every illicit copy when he is made aware of it, it will give others the ability to create derivative works and not pay him a dime. I can't seem to find the post he made though.

So I can understand why WotC cannot simply borrow ideas from the forums, or freely incorporate homebrew into their design; but none of that is what I was suggesting.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-29, 11:40 AM
Warning, wall o' text incoming.

Regarding the "why doesn't WotC make use of the community" question: it's not so much a matter of WotC borrowing homebrew material as it is using forumites to give books a once-over before they go to print. At the height of 3.5, WotC could spend weeks or months balancing and playtesting books, yet the CharOp board with its combined expertise and creativity would usually find every exploit and broken bit within one or two days after release. WotC could have gotten upwards of a thousand proofreaders and playtesters if they'd just said "Hey guys, we won't pay you, but if you tell us what's broken and fix some spelling errors, we'll let you take a look at the books two weeks early."

In fact, there was once an effort to do exactly that, where the more prominent CharOp members were working with the forum staff to balance-check and proofread new books, but (A) the one time they were allowed to do that, WotC reneged on its promise to put their screen names in a playtester thanks page and (B) WotC decided against it after the first attempt. So WotC had at its fingertips dozens of people who knew the game better than any single writer at WotC and who were willing to do a big chunk of work for no pay and no legal ramifications whatsoever, and they turned it down.

I will give WotC some credit, though. The latest 3e books are much better balanced and thought out than the earlier ones; the Tomes and MoI, with the exception of the Truenamer and Soulborn, excellently done on the whole, and the books leading up to them aren't too shabby either. I think most of the problem with 3e books arise from two things. First, WotC's design philosophy was to assume you had the core 3 and nothing else, which is why anything released out of core was likely to never see support again. Because of this, I'm guessing the playtest philosophy started to look the same way--the designers thought that if sales told them that the core 3 were selling best and players seemed to like the material they're handing out, people must not be using all books and so playtesting that wasn't a primary concern. I'm guessing that it wasn't until they started having designers frequent the forums that they realized that more often than not players used at least Core+Completes and usually more, and the percentage of people who said anything by WotC was fine was higher than expected; that's about the time when warlock invocations and soulmelds started showing up in Dragon Magic and they started putting lots of vestiges up on their site as expanded content.

Second, the idea of 3e as being 2e with the core system ripped out and replaced with something more streamlined was pretty much how it was designed; you can see this in the way lots of rules text was simply copy-pasted from 2e (like the infamous rope trick "extradimensional spaces are hazardous" clause) and designer interviews and such. The designers didn't really see the secondary effects of their changes (e.g. "let's raise HP to increase survivability at higher levels " and as a side effect blasting isn't as good anymore) and just playtested the blasty wizard/healy cleric/sneaky rogue/slashy fighter party that 2e seemed to be designed around, not bothering to test other permutations. I'm sure at some point they realized this wasn't working, since as several have noted you can see monsters and classes becoming more inventive and more optimization-friendly, but they couldn't exactly switch gears right in the middle of 3e. ToB, for instance, is fairly transparently meant to be a replacement for core melee (whether you think that's a good idea or not), because they couldn't very well tell players they messed up core and to please buy PHB 3 that would update core to new standards.

So in summary, I'd say that the problems with 3e are about 1/3 due to administration issues (not wanting outside help and not letting designers interact with the playerbase early on), 1/3 staffing issues (designer turnover not letting them become familiar with all the material and not being able to grasp the game and make changes until they've been there for a while) and 1/3 fear of admitting they're wrong (they couldn't change philosophy mid-stream, they didn't change playtesting, etc.). Take that as you will.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-06-29, 11:43 AM
As I said, I support GRRM's position, because copyright holders are placed in the very unenviable position of being assumed to have forfeited their copyright if they don't defend it.
This simply isn't true.

As noted in the GRRM comments, Trademarks work that way - and The Giant likely has concurrent trademarks on the various images that he has also copyrighted. The same is not true for the sort of fanfics spoken of in the various blogs. In fact, the Copyright Act gives the original authors automatic rights to all unauthorized derivative works - a court order can allow any author to fully own any fanfic of their established characters.

Also, GRRM's examples are extremely dated and misleading. HPL did, in fact, give others permission to profit from his works via derivative writings. Likewise, the Tarzan example of "lapsed registration" no longer applies as there is no longer a registration requirement for copyrights.

His moral arguments are, of course, impossible to refute.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 11:51 AM
Warning, wall o' text incoming.

*snip*

Precisely this.

And we would have done it too, even without pay. Why? Because we love this game. Imagine being one of the 20 or so forumites who gets to see the design docs early. Imagine getting to participate in a PbP with Skip, or Bruce, or hell, even RICH, because you were nominated by the community as a real ultimate homebrewer who knows what is and isn't balanced and how to fix the things that aren't.

Imagine them actually realizing that posters like Fax, alchemyprime, Lycanthromancer, Sinfire_Titan, Person_Man etc (too many to list here, you get the idea) are doing a better job for free at something they were and are paying people decent chunks of money to screw up.

And even if they aren't willing to involve the community before the book's release, at least solicit us for the errata. Nobody can claim they stole our ideas then, since every suggestion we have to fix things is based on their original product.

The whole thing is just an endless Chinese Fire Drill of epic failure proportions.

---
Edit @ O_H: you say potayto... Again, I don't think the GRRM blog is really relevant to this topic, so I'm not very concerned about getting the terms just right.

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 12:02 PM
This simply isn't true.

As noted in the GRRM comments, Trademarks work that way

Yes. The problem, however, arises from having to defend that in a court case when challenged. Sure, you'll almost certainly win, but it will be expensive, arduous, and a public relations disaster.

Reinboom
2010-06-29, 12:39 PM
With those, they have struck a balance - protecting their IP, while still allowing the community to contribute. And every (http://magiccards.info/mi/en/245.html) last (http://magiccards.info/tsts/en/99.html) invitational (http://magiccards.info/ts/en/274.html) card (http://magiccards.info/ps/en/116.html) has been good. Powerful without being broken, and tournament staples to this day, particularly those that rotate.

Sylvan Safekeeper (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=35062), Rootwater Thief (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?name=Rootwater+Thief), Rakdos Augermage (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?name=Rakdos+Augermage) would all like to thank you for the undeserved compliment. :smalltongue:
Out of those, only the Augermage is considered any good and the Safekeeper will see occasional use. And they are still not good type of good.

Also, the caverns was designed by someone who lost invitationals. Just, an online poll convinced WotC to print it anyways. <3 WotC. They know their game.

Oh, and for info. 2008 saw the last invitationals. The card designed from it has yet to be released, however.


Also, as I recall, when Magic's public contribution system was set up, WOTC was in charge; now, Hasbro is. That may make all the difference.

I would just wish to state that Combo Winter, widely considered as the most publicly broken age in magic (would be the very beginning, however... the game was still growing and it the internet didn't fuel it), occurred while under WotC's solo flag. A good couple years before the Hasbro purchase.

WotC is also big on listening more to the casual gamers now. They even do silly things such as this article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/deck/238) still.



That aside, RPGs are a much harder thing to design for. Development and balancing must be strange. You can't just simply build a deck and test it. You need to find balance points and you have a lot more "open" options. There is also a ton of different types of playstyles and games.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 12:54 PM
Sylvan Safekeeper (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=35062), Rootwater Thief (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?name=Rootwater+Thief), Rakdos Augermage (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?name=Rakdos+Augermage) would all like to thank you for the undeserved compliment. :smalltongue:
Out of those, only the Augermage is considered any good and the Safekeeper will see occasional use. And they are still not good type of good.

Rootwater Thief is old enough that it barely counts, and the other two saw tournament play, so they were at least worth the cardboard they were printed on.
(Then again, so did One With Nothing (http://magiccards.info/sok/en/84.html)... so grain of salt and all that. :smalltongue:)

My point remains valid though - none of them sucked, yet WotC has made plenty of sucky rares on their own.


Also, the caverns was designed by someone who lost invitationals. Just, an online poll convinced WotC to print it anyways. <3 WotC. They know their game.

This only strengthens my point. They listen to their playerbase in MTG via online polls - why not in D&D?

Even something simple like that - "hey, we're trying to decide between option A and option B, what do you guys think?" would be better than keeping us out of the process entirely, and evidently create no legal issues.


That aside, RPGs are a much harder thing to design for. Development and balancing must be strange. You can't just simply build a deck and test it. You need to find balance points and you have a lot more "open" options. There is also a ton of different types of playstyles and games.

That sounds like more reason to involve CharOp in the design process, not less.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-06-29, 01:00 PM
Edit @ O_H: you say potayto... Again, I don't think the GRRM blog is really relevant to this topic, so I'm not very concerned about getting the terms just right.
It's a bit more than semantics - they're two entirely different areas of law.

I, too, don't plan on engaging in a topic that is likely to get this thread locked, but it is important to note that any legal arguments GRMM made regarding fanfics are simply wrong. One should not get the impression that fanfics could cause authors to lose ownership over their creations as a matter of law, and I do not appreciate it when such scare tactics are used to justify what is essentially a moral argument.

Questions regarding the marketing and merchandizing of a product are, of course, a separate matter entirely. The law protects against counterfeit products, but few - if any - are going to confuse a HP Fanfic with the genuine article :smalltongue:

Reinboom
2010-06-29, 01:02 PM
That sounds like more reason to involve CharOp in the design process, not less.

It is more reason. :smallconfused:
I never said it wasn't.
=======
Edit: for correction of the goal of my post. I was actually agreeing with you in general. I was just making fun of the point of cards you used.
More however, I was defending the MtG half of WotC from Kurald. The D&D and MtG departments seem to be very separate entities. And Wizards definitely appears to be their own head of the hasbro hydra, they generally think for themselves.

If the different pieces of hasbro actually influenced more than just the legal sides of things, the gaming market would be in pretty bad shape. Could you imagine design ideas from Monopoly seeping into D&D? Ugh. Monopoly is, in the words of Charles Barkley, turr-uhble.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 01:05 PM
It is more reason. :smallconfused:
I never said it wasn't.

It wasn't clear which side of the argument you were coming down on from your post. I didn't mean to imply you were against me, I was merely adding that coda to your thought.

@O_H: Yes, I understand; thank you for clarifying.

Oslecamo
2010-06-29, 01:26 PM
This only strengthens my point. They listen to their playerbase in MTG via online polls - why not in D&D?

They do. It's called 4e. You asked for balance over everything and clear not-exploitable rules and Wotc answered.:smalltongue:

On a more serious note, why the beating of the dead horse? Wotc has moved on to 4e, where they listen to all the people who complained about balance, and 3.X is now running on the back of fanmade material.:smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 01:30 PM
On a more serious note, why the beating of the dead horse? Wotc has moved on to 4e, where they listen to all the people who complained about balance, and 3.X is now running on the back of fanmade material.:smallconfused:
Because WOTC's advise on how to make 4E characters isn't necessarily all that great either, and there are several rules issues and power level issues that people have been discussing for months or years and that remain unresolved, and because various parts of WOTC (e.g. designers and FAQ) tend to contradict each other, and there is no clear answer which should take precedence.

Although to be fair, they have put a lot of work into errata in the past few months, and that does help.

Knaight
2010-06-29, 02:18 PM
One should not get the impression that fanfics could cause authors to lose ownership over their creations as a matter of law, and I do not appreciate it when such scare tactics are used to justify what is essentially a moral argument.

They are only scare tactics if GRRM actually knows the real case and put this up because he thought it was a convincing lie.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-29, 02:21 PM
Simple answer. Lawyers. etc

Oh my god... I never thought I'd see the day when 4chan would be the perfect solution to a problem. Anon homebrew made canon material. Beautiful.

BSW
2010-06-29, 03:23 PM
Simple answer. Lawyers. (I use Catalyst as an example, because it's the game company I know best.)

Multiple times over the years, "fans" of games have sued game companies for control over the property. Why? Because the game designers saw an idea or theory they liked on a message board and decided to incorporate it into their game rules and/or universe. Most of the time, this results in the fan saying "cool!". Some of the time, it results in the fan saying, "you owe me money for my ideas". Then the lawyers come out.

Hey now... don't blame us!

We lawyers do a grand total of nothing until one of those ornery fans decides to come and hire us to represent them. Plus, a suit like that... well, let's just say that it doesn't exactly have most of us salivating.

If you want to blame someone for litigiousness, blame the fan. Blaming the lawyer is hardly fair at all. After all, if someone hits you in the knee with a bat, you don't blame the bat do you?

Il_Vec
2010-06-29, 03:31 PM
If you want to blame someone for litigiousness, blame the fan. Blaming the lawyer is hardly fair at all. After all, if someone hits you in the knee with a bat, you don't blame the bat do you?

No, I'd sue the bat's manufacturer!

Blackfang108
2010-06-29, 03:38 PM
After all, if someone hits you in the knee with a bat, you don't blame the bat do you?

I've done it. (Granted, it was the shin, but still...) :smallbiggrin:

Lord Raziere
2010-06-29, 03:38 PM
People are already homebrewing for free.

yea, the rules are so standardized and well-known that you can basically modify it in a thousand different ways, plus its a cooperative game rather than a competitive one; Mt:G rules remain consistent because one player can't say "I want to play by these rules" while another player plays by different ones, while in DnD you can do that.

that and the constantly changing metagame that keeps rotating out sets that are too old. that is certainly a major factor.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-06-29, 03:40 PM
They are only scare tactics if GRRM actually knows the real case and put this up because he thought it was a convincing lie.
I'm not saying he was intentionally lying, but his usage of them is incorrect all the same.

As I stated, his scare examples (HPL and Bad Tarzan Comics) were inappropriate when used to warn against fanfics. HPL gave others permission to use his IP for profit, while the Bad Tarzan Comics were only legal because of a failure to register by the copyright holder - which cannot happen under our current "automatic" copyright regime. This is much the same as warning people against drinking alcohol because bathtub gin made during Prohibition caused some people to go blind.

The MBZ example is just weird. It is one thing to have an argument over the original authorship of a logo or character, but a fanfic writer who is explictly using your creations cannot win copyright on it. To refuse to write a book because someone wrote a similar fanfic makes no sense if it is in response to a legal threat. Doing so because someone else already wrote that story makes slightly more sense - but if the fanfic writer is doing a better job with your creations than you are, perhaps you need to get out of the writing business :smalltongue:

That said, his personal feelings regarding creations-as-children are inherently unimpeachable; whether that makes for good public policy is another matter entirely.

lesser_minion
2010-06-29, 05:29 PM
WotC are in a somewhat different position to authors -- IIRC, they handle the forum issue by simply making anyone who signs up to their forums license any original material they post in such a way WotC can use it however they want without having to pay royalties.

Anything posted elsewhere still comes under their rules (http://www.wizards.com/fankit/fantoolkitdnd.html) as well.

[hr]

As for the OP, my general impression is that most of WotC's problems were basically management issues. It seems like the simplest explanation for most of the problems that came up.

High staff turnover is also illuminating.

There are a few points in 3.5 where I get the impression that the designers simply didn't understand the rationale behind what they were updating -- see also the massive reduction in duration for stat-boosting spells, coupled with the addition of three new ones that didn't really need to exist (there is a reason why it was easier to boost physical stats than mental stats in 3.0).

Kurald Galain
2010-06-29, 05:55 PM
I'd say that a fan that thinks he deserves payment for an idea seriously misunderstands how game design (or indeed, novel writing) works.

Hague
2010-06-29, 06:02 PM
to expand... hideous blow is a hideous trap and hideously sucks.
You see, hideous blow takes 1 round to cast, and is discharged the first time you hit something.

So, lets say you have two rounds...
without hideous blow:
round 1: make a range touch attack to hit someone with an eldritch blast.
round 2: make a melee attack for regular damage.

with hideous blow:
round 1: cast hideous blow
round 2: make a melee attack, if one of the hits connects, you deal regular damage, plus the damage you would have dealt by using a regular blast. only now you used a normal attack instead of a touch attack... and had to be in melee, and didn't do damage on the first round.

It is a downgrade in every way.
Glaive on the other hand let you conjure up a glaive made out of eldritch energy, it has reach, it lets you perform as many attacks as your BAB allows (so, as many as 4 with haste), they are all touch attacks (so you don't miss), and they all apply whatever modification you are using and deal full blast damage which is ((level+1)/2) * d6.

So, say hello to 15d6 + 2 negative levels per hit combined with 4+ attacks a round (AoO, cleave, etc)

You are incorrect about how Hideous Blow works. You don't 'cast hideous blow.' Hideous blow is an eldritch shape invocation. You use a standard action to attack and hit with an eldritch blast at the same time. There's no invoking hideous blow first, then waiting and then attacking. The same applies to Eldritch Glaive, you can immediately make a full-attack action to use it. The difference is that you can't (typically) move and attack with an eldritch glaive. You have to be in position to hit with it. Any enemy that's got a brain will keep the hell away from you, preventing you from using it. Hideous blow will let you move and then attack with any weapon and apply your eldritch blast to it. They are two very different invocations that work together.

Douglas
2010-06-29, 06:11 PM
You are incorrect about how Hideous Blow works. You don't 'cast hideous blow.' Hideous blow is an eldritch shape invocation. You use a standard action to attack and hit with an eldritch blast at the same time. There's no invoking hideous blow first, then waiting and then attacking. The same applies to Eldritch Glaive, you can immediately make a full-attack action to use it. The difference is that you can't (typically) move and attack with an eldritch glaive. You have to be in position to hit with it. Any enemy that's got a brain will keep the hell away from you, preventing you from using it. Hideous blow will let you move and then attack with any weapon and apply your eldritch blast to it. They are two very different invocations that work together.
He probably got the misconception about Hideous Blow from Neverwinter Nights 2, where his summary is exactly how it works. Yes, it is atrociously bad in that game. In actual D&D it's still bad, just not that bad.

Tavar
2010-06-29, 06:14 PM
If you aren't in position to use EG, just use regular Eldritch blast while you move into position. Barring some very specific builds, it's going to work better, as it's still a touch attack, plus you don't have to worry about provoking.

Hague
2010-06-29, 06:30 PM
True. The question is, what happens if someone readies an action to disarm of your glaive when you use it?

Edit: You wouldn't provoke with Hideous Blow, you spend a standard action to make a melee attack. Melee attacks don't provoke AoOs.

Il_Vec
2010-06-29, 06:36 PM
True. The question is, what happens if someone readies an action to disarm of your glaive when you use it?

Edit: You wouldn't provoke with Hideous Blow, you spend a standard action to make a melee attack. Melee attacks don't provoke AoOs.

He'd need reach to do that. If he does have reach, I am away from book, but I think EG states that it cannot be disarmed.

Milskidasith
2010-06-29, 06:40 PM
Another reason D&D homebrew would be a lot harder to implement than homebrew for "make a card" is that make a card is fairly easy to balance and simple, while D&D is much harder to balance and harder to actually finish a homebrew class.

Hague
2010-06-29, 06:42 PM
Nope, doesn't say it can't be disarmed. It might in Errata though.

I'm making the disarm attempt with a whip, for instance.

Note: That doing this is risky, if my disarm attempt fails, I provoke an AoO from the glaive-wielder after he makes his full attack. He can't make the AoO before, because he doesn't have it until he makes his full attack which was interrupted by my disarm attempt.

It's not specifically allowed, since whips make ranged attacks, but would you as a DM allow Hideous Blow to work with with a whip? Might be interesting, using HB to make trip and disarm attempts and dealing extra EB damage + essence invocations.

Eldritch Theurge with whip proficiency, making trip attack Hideous Blows that apply grease spells or Burning hands + EB damage.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 06:50 PM
Another reason D&D homebrew would be a lot harder to implement than homebrew for "make a card" is that make a card is fairly easy to balance and simple, while D&D is much harder to balance and harder to actually finish a homebrew class.

I would love to know the playtesting process behind the Truenamer. The Shadowcaster didn't get a lot either, given the actual designer's ideas on fixing it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-29, 07:12 PM
I would love to know the playtesting process behind the Truenamer.

I have the playtest logs around here, lemme dig them out and post them...right. Names changed to protect the not-so-innocent.

Player 1: "Man, it's too easy to hit these DCs."

Player 2: "Can't change it now; Tome goes off to the printer tomorrow."

Player 1: "Tell you what, let's just make it double the CR instead of just CR."

Player 2: "That sounds like it'll work."

*scribble scribble*

Player 1: "You think we should playtest this first?"

...

Players 1 and 2: "Naaah."

Tedesche
2010-06-29, 07:23 PM
A lot of people have been saying that some of the warlock's abilities (e.g. charm, baleful utterance, etc) aren't as good as other invocations that are more in line with an "optimized character." It seems to me though that when people say a character is "optimized," what they really mean is that it is optimized for battle. While its true that most campaigns focus heavily on fighting, some of the best I've played in don't involve much at all. I would say the worst of the warlock's abilities are ones that are only useful in combat, but aren't actually that useful even then (e.g. enervating shadow, earthen grasp, stony grasp, etc). The ones that are useful outside of the combat aren't necessarily worse than the useful combat-oriented ones, it's just that they don't help you kill more XP blobs. I've always felt that D&D should've had a rules system whereby DMs could assign XP for solving various non-combat-related problems. Most DMs homebrew this, but it would nice if the system actually made rules for it—then more people might actually think about playing their character well outside of a fight.

And I'm sorry, but Charisma is by no means a dump stat for warlocks! Practically every eldritch essence in the game has an effect with a save to resist, and while you certainly won't keep ones like sickening blast, it sure is nice to have a high CHA during those early levels when that's all you've got! Plus, many of those essences' effects only last for one round. I'm pretty sure the developers made it this way, because they figured 'locks would be using their EBs every round, so they made it so that, in order to make their essences' effects truly useful, they'd have to keep attacking the same opponent(s) with them to renew the effect. Not bad logic by any means, really. But the only way to reliably have those effects chain from round to round is to have a high save DC. Finally, utterdark blast is by no means the only useful essence! Most warlock players agree you need vitriolic blast to bypass SR, and noxious blast is a battle-ender for those vulnerable to nauseation. The latter definitely benefits from having a high save DC. NOT choosing CHA is only wise if you choose to play a warlock build that doesn't focus on abilities with saves, like the various self-buffs. Personally though, I think the better builds are the ones that do.

And seriously, if you don't at least tip your hat to baleful utterance, you really need to think more creatively. Even if your opponent is a christmas tree, there are still usually things in the environment that you can break to give you a strategic advantage. (And enough about unattended objects not requiring a save—that was a separate argument related to the one I just covered!) Shatter has myriad uses; if you can't come up with any, then you clearly shouldn't take it, but don't blame the invocation for your mundane imagination.

And the more general point about being creative with your abilities goes for more than just warlocks. Spontaneous casters need to be as well. What they lack in spell selection can be made up for to a large degree by choosing spells with variable utility, even in combat situations. One of the things I like about warlocks and sorcerers is that they force me to think outside the box. Wizards may be one of the best classes with enough expenditure of time and money, but spontaneous casters can be nearly as effective through intelligent spell selection and creative spell use. I'm SO bored of hearing the argument that "anything a sorcerer can do, a wizard can do better." Yeah, that's true—so long as you have a complete transcript of every day faxed to you from tomorrow! Don't get me wrong, if your preferred playstyle involves scouting out every situation you go into well in advance and preparing for it meticulously, then by all means play a prepared spellcaster. Personally, I prefer to think on my feet, and that has plenty of advantages.

[/rant]

Milskidasith
2010-06-29, 07:31 PM
I would love to know the playtesting process behind the Truenamer. The Shadowcaster didn't get a lot either, given the actual designer's ideas on fixing it.

Is this implying that, because they released terrible and unplayable classes, they should allow terrible and unplayable homebrew suggestions? Or did you just quote my post for a different reason?

BRC
2010-06-29, 07:35 PM
And the more general point about being creative with your abilities goes for more than just warlocks. Spontaneous casters need to be as well. What they lack in spell selection can be made up for to a large degree by choosing spells with variable utility, even in combat situations. One of the things I like about warlocks and sorcerers is that they force me to think outside the box. Wizards may be one of the best classes with enough expenditure of time and money, but spontaneous casters can be nearly as effective through intelligent spell selection and creative spell use. I'm SO bored of hearing the argument that "anything a sorcerer can do, a wizard can do better." Yeah, that's true—so long as you have a complete transcript of every day faxed to you from tomorrow! Don't get me wrong, if your preferred playstyle involves scouting out every situation you go into well in advance and preparing for it meticulously, then by all means play a prepared spellcaster. Personally, I prefer to think on my feet, and that has plenty of advantages.

[/rant]
Okay, slightly off topic, but I feel I need to comment on this, or more accurately, agree with it.

Wizards are certainly a powerful class, but I think their power is inflated from "Very Effective" to "Unstoppable" by the very nature of these sorts of discussions.

In DnD, the Wizard is the class with the biggest Toolbox. And in there, there is a tool for just about every situation, so when somebody says "How would you beat X", somebody else responds "Play a Wizard, Cast spell Y". Which of course relies on the Wizard knowing Spell Y was needed. Now, there are ways to know that spell Y is needed (Scrying ,for example), but a DM can still take a Wizard by surprise easily enough. Even then, it relies on a Wizard having the needed spell in their spellbook, easily defeated by having the Magi-Mart (Contains every magic item you could want, for exactly it's book price, and can be found in every city, town, or village) not be available.
However, it's impossible to replicate these conditions outside of actual gameplay.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 07:37 PM
Is this implying that, because they released terrible and unplayable classes, they should allow terrible and unplayable homebrew suggestions? Or did you just quote my post for a different reason?

I quoted your post because you imply that playtesting and balancing homebrew is difficult, yet there are plenty of official classes whose glaring deficiencies would have been caught/pointed out in moments had they been first released as homebrew on sites such as this one.

In other words, one wonders how it is the playerbase can point out the flaws in a homebrew class in a relatively short time, yet have weeks to months of actual design fail to turn up similar flaws.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-29, 07:39 PM
Warlock's get some nice invocations, but they only get 3 of each type. Without the eldritch glaive they can't do much in direct damage, but Dragon Magic at least fixed that. So with only 3 of each your selecting the best ones are far more important. Thought, would warlock's be overpowerd compared to the T2 and T3 classes if instead of selecting invocations they knew all of them?

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 07:46 PM
Warlock's get some nice invocations, but they only get 3 of each type. Without the eldritch glaive they can't do much in direct damage, but Dragon Magic at least fixed that. So with only 3 of each your selecting the best ones are far more important.

You can grab more with the Extra Invocation feat, and/or rely on Deceive Item + UMD to fill any gaps in your arsenal via wands/staves/etc.


Thought, would warlock's be overpowerd compared to the T2 and T3 classes if instead of selecting invocations they knew all of them?

In a high-powered game I'd allow it. They'd have some pretty neat tricks.

PId6
2010-06-29, 07:51 PM
Thought, would warlock's be overpowerd compared to the T2 and T3 classes if instead of selecting invocations they knew all of them?
That would be a very interesting and powerful variant. Probably makes it too good compared to T3 classes, but I'd allow it in an optimized T1-T2 game. In such a case, their versatility would match that of T1s, especially since they have UMD to make up for what invocations lack, but they still come a bit short in terms of pure power, which balances out.

Tedesche
2010-06-29, 07:59 PM
Eh...even if a warlock knew every invocation, I still don't think it would qualify as a Tier 1 class. Their versatility would still be dwarfed by a sufficiently studied wizard, and even with hellfire blast and a greater chausable, they still couldn't match the damage outputs that sorcerers are capable of (T2). I'd say they'd definitely qualify as Tier 2, but not Tier 1.

EDIT: And yes, I am quite aware that I just (sort of) contradicted my obnoxiously long diatribe on how wizards are not the be-all and end-all of arcane spellcasters. They're not. The tier system doesn't really factor in ambushes, it seems to me, which is where spontaneous spellcasting really gets a chance to shine.

Hague
2010-06-29, 08:16 PM
Well, when a wizard doesn't have featherfall or flying and they fail a simple jump check...

Matthew
2010-06-29, 08:28 PM
Very true; I just had a crack at it with Regdar and managed to scrounge up 1,000 EP in Hommlet, then another 2,000 or so killing giant frogs outside of the Moat House. I reckon I could make a good go of it with a fighter, should at least be a bit of fun. :smallbiggrin:

Yep, turns out Regdar is a solo combat machine in ToEE, hitting level 8 by the time he reached Lareth at the end of the Moat House. He would have no chance in the temple by himself, but watching him take down multiple enemies with a specialised bastard sword and great cleave was highly entertaining. :smallbiggrin:

Zaq
2010-06-29, 08:33 PM
I have the playtest logs around here, lemme dig them out and post them...right. Names changed to protect the not-so-innocent.

Player 1: "Man, it's too easy to hit these DCs."

Player 2: "Can't change it now; Tome goes off to the printer tomorrow."

Player 1: "Tell you what, let's just make it double the CR instead of just CR."

Player 2: "That sounds like it'll work."

*scribble scribble*

Player 1: "You think we should playtest this first?"

...

Players 1 and 2: "Naaah."

Oh, if only it were as simple as all that.

Some day, I swear, I will find a way to contact whoever was in charge of the Truenamer's development. I would love to have a (completely civil, honestly) conversation with him or her.

Tavar
2010-06-29, 08:34 PM
Warlock's get some nice invocations, but they only get 3 of each type. Without the eldritch glaive they can't do much in direct damage, but Dragon Magic at least fixed that. So with only 3 of each your selecting the best ones are far more important. Thought, would warlock's be overpowerd compared to the T2 and T3 classes if instead of selecting invocations they knew all of them?

Had a similar idea Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134026). Basically sets the warlock up with a spirit shaman/Euridite invocation scheme.

Optimystik
2010-06-29, 08:35 PM
Even being surprised isn't a big issue for prepared casters - it's all a matter of how many splats you have access to. Spells like Alter Self, Haste, Mirror Image, Glitterdust and Shatter are always a good idea to prepare; outside core, we get goodies like Heart of Water, Celerity, Orb of Force, Translocation Trick...some spells are just useful, whether you're jumped or not, and should always be prepared.

Wonton
2010-06-29, 09:44 PM
And the more general point about being creative with your abilities goes for more than just warlocks. Spontaneous casters need to be as well. What they lack in spell selection can be made up for to a large degree by choosing spells with variable utility, even in combat situations. One of the things I like about warlocks and sorcerers is that they force me to think outside the box. Wizards may be one of the best classes with enough expenditure of time and money, but spontaneous casters can be nearly as effective through intelligent spell selection and creative spell use. I'm SO bored of hearing the argument that "anything a sorcerer can do, a wizard can do better." Yeah, that's true—so long as you have a complete transcript of every day faxed to you from tomorrow! Don't get me wrong, if your preferred playstyle involves scouting out every situation you go into well in advance and preparing for it meticulously, then by all means play a prepared spellcaster. Personally, I prefer to think on my feet, and that has plenty of advantages.

[/rant]

I really want to agree with this. Despite everything I've heard, I feel like in the case of my DM (who enjoys tricking/lying to his players a leetle too much), a well-planned Sorcerer would work as well/better than a wizard. Yes, you didn't have room to take Disguise Self and Detect Thoughts, so you're not as useful at the 'party' mission, but when it (inevitably) turns out that everyone at the party is a disguised vampire or something, you're less likely to be caught with your pants down than the Wizard.

Having said that, I've only played one Sorcerer with this DM (and, being my first character, he was quite unoptimized), and I'm only going to play my first Wizard this fall.

Milskidasith
2010-06-29, 10:03 PM
I quoted your post because you imply that playtesting and balancing homebrew is difficult, yet there are plenty of official classes whose glaring deficiencies would have been caught/pointed out in moments had they been first released as homebrew on sites such as this one.

In other words, one wonders how it is the playerbase can point out the flaws in a homebrew class in a relatively short time, yet have weeks to months of actual design fail to turn up similar flaws.

Playtesting and balancing is difficult... WotC is just really awful and slow at it.

People are better at balancing things, but a lot of homebrew PrCs take a ton of rework and edited posts to come back to normal, especially when many are proposing many nonstandard things (nonstandard BAB, saves, save DCs, etc) and don't really have a stated balance level.

Tedesche
2010-06-29, 11:11 PM
Even being surprised isn't a big issue for prepared casters - it's all a matter of how many splats you have access to. Spells like Alter Self, Haste, Mirror Image, Glitterdust and Shatter are always a good idea to prepare; outside core, we get goodies like Heart of Water, Celerity, Orb of Force, Translocation Trick...some spells are just useful, whether you're jumped or not, and should always be prepared.

How many splats matters OOG, but in-game, it still takes time and money to research spells and such. If you're playing with a DM that will let you just nab any spell you want from any book, say you're buying a scroll of it at the AnySpell Emporium, and scribe it to your spellbook, then yeah, wizards pretty much have access to any spell in the game whenever they want it. The same applies to the spell pool available to magi of the Arcane Order. Being able to limitlessly expand your list of spells known should come at a cost though, and the game levy's that cost in terms of money and time. If you ignore those rules or somehow get around them all the time, then you're effectively making wizards nearly equal to clerics and druids in that sense. I believe, the way it was intended to work was that wizards who chose to spend time researching spells would go to the library while the rest of the party did something that earned them extra experience. So, the mage sacrifices money and potential XP for a new spell, while the group's sorcerer gets closer to his next level. This is fair. Allowing wizards nigh-unlimited access to any spell in the game at virtually no cost is not.

Also, I made this point in another thread about warlocks, but the same goes here to a lesser extent: sorcerers are designed to outlast wizards in terms of spells available to cast over the course of a day. If the day involves only one or two encounters, then both will likely get through without depleting their spell totals. However, if you're in a dungeon, and you can't rest safely until you escape it, then your spells have to last you the entire way through, and the sorcerer's greater number of spell slots gives him an advantage here. Yes, wizards can get more slots by specializing, but they give up access to spell schools as a result. Again, this is balanced.

Both classes have inherent strengths and weaknesses, but if some of those elements never get a chance to show themselves (due to campaign design or otherwise), then they cease to be meaningful. Good DMs make sure to provide situations in which all characters in the party can shine. The arguments about wizards being universally better than any other class all seem based on the assumptions that a) the wizard can somehow know what's coming, and b) he starts the game with a bauble of persistent time stop for the purposes of expanding his spellbook.

EDIT: That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I think wizards and sorcerers are truly evenly balanced as base classes. If you ignore skills and feats, and solely compare their spellcasting styles, then I would say, yes, they more or less are. However, wizards get Scribe Scroll for free, a bunch of free metamagic feats, more class skills, and a primary spellcasting attribute that also affords them a greater number of skill points to spend. The sorcerer, on the other hand, basically just gets Bluff as a class skill. This is not balanced, thus making wizards essentially better.

Jorda75
2010-06-29, 11:17 PM
Yer darn right they don't. Hell, they designed 4.0 didn't they? Ouch! :smallbiggrin:

Skeppio
2010-06-30, 06:20 PM
Notice that at no point do they use the word "good" or "effective".

But they did claim that monk levels have something to look forward to as you progress. :smallannoyed:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-30, 06:25 PM
But they did claim that monk levels have something to look forward to as you progress. :smallannoyed:

But they do! Every new level brings a new opportunity to multiclass out or retrain to swordsage!

arguskos
2010-06-30, 06:26 PM
But they do! Every new level brings a new opportunity to multiclass out or retrain to swordsage!
Or kill yourself in shame! The possibilities are truly endless! This obviously makes it the best class ever! :smallbiggrin: *playslaughtrack*

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-30, 06:28 PM
Or kill yourself in shame! The possibilities are truly endless! This obviously makes it the best class ever! :smallbiggrin: *playslaughtrack*

Wait...your monks wait until level-up to kill themselves in shame? Wow. You certainly have some dedicated players.

arguskos
2010-06-30, 06:32 PM
Wait...your monks wait until level-up to kill themselves in shame? Wow. You certainly have some dedicated players.
Had a player once who played a monk up to level 6 before giving up in shame. He killed himself by holding a pass, 300-style, against an invading army. The army? Fire giants. Him? A level 6 human monk. Verdict? Pain.

Corporate M
2010-06-30, 06:47 PM
You make an excellent point OP that warlock is one of the few casters who's key stat is actually a dump stat. But I see that as a good thing. I assume they didn't just say that so people wouldn't whine about broken...

Warlocks save DCs are only minally effected by their stat. So another words, build a 3.5 warlock much like a fourth edition. Dexterity and Constitution so you have lots of HP and better ranged momentium for your eldritch blast. (Or strength if you intend to use that eldritch essence for melee)

I think next time I play a 3.5 game I'm going to build this physical stat based warlock and see how well I can make it work.

http://www.pureanimegallery.com/d/6008-1/strong-arm-alchemist.jpg
If you're going to sell your soul, you may as well sell it for goodlooks along with power!

The Glyphstone
2010-06-30, 06:49 PM
If you're going to sell your soul, you may as well sell it for goodlooks along with power!


Then beat up the devil/demon you sold it to with your newfound power and steal your soul back?[/chucknorris]

dps
2010-06-30, 06:53 PM
If WOTC doesn't know DnD, well, really, it's not their game. Magic is their game; DnD was TSR's game.

And the basic problem, which started with 1st edition and whichhas never really been fixed, despite all the re-designs, is that TSR had people who had a lot of cool ideas, but didn't have people who could really do a good job writing rules.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-30, 06:58 PM
If WOTC doesn't know DnD, well, really, it's not their game. Magic is their game; DnD was TSR's game.

The big problem is that they tried to make it their game without understanding it. They actually fixed a bunch of issues with AD&D, they just added a bunch more in different places.

zugschef
2010-07-12, 02:58 PM
i think the best examples of wotc not understanding their own game mechanics are all cases in which a skillcheck is directly related with a save dc (or similar). incantatrix and some tob maneuvers immediately come to my mind.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-12, 04:29 PM
i think the best examples of wotc not understanding their own game mechanics are all cases in which a skillcheck is directly related with a save dc (or similar). incantatrix and some tob maneuvers immediately come to my mind.

Heck, that problem is in Core, with the Bard's Fascinate ability. Any bard worth his salt can basically make that DC unbeatable except on natural 20's.

Stompy
2010-07-12, 05:36 PM
Heck, that problem is in Core, with the Bard's Fascinate ability. Any bard worth his salt can basically make that DC unbeatable except on natural 20's.

...and then keep firing free suggestions at level 6+ until the fascinate runs out. If I remember correctly, "I suggest you give me your magical equipment." is considered reasonable.

I could probably add some fuel to the fire but I think everything has been said already.

zugschef
2010-07-14, 06:46 PM
Heck, that problem is in Core, with the Bard's Fascinate ability. Any bard worth his salt can basically make that DC unbeatable except on natural 20's.
oh! i completely forgot that... *shudder*

i really don't understand how the designers could make such a mistake. the brokeness of this mechanic (and it's broken beyond repair) is obvious.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-14, 06:48 PM
Plus, if you look at it the right way, Truenaming is the exact same concept....just reversed to be unplayable bad instead of overpowered awesome.

zugschef
2010-07-14, 06:59 PM
Plus, if you look at it the right way, Truenaming is the exact same concept....just reversed to be unplayable bad instead of overpowered awesome.
exactly. skills and saves do not work together since both increase by entirely different rates and use entirely different mechanics to begin with.

maybe someone said something like, "hey, we let hide checks set the dc for spot checks. it's ok to let perform set the save dc for fascinate."

when it came to truenaming they tried to nerf the way to set the dc instead of acknowledging that it's simply incompatible.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-15, 12:05 AM
Heck, that problem is in Core, with the Bard's Fascinate ability. Any bard worth his salt can basically make that DC unbeatable except on natural 20's.
I think the designers were counting on the limitations being an acceptable safeguard.
The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working. ... If its saving throw fails, the creature sits quietly and listens to the song, taking no other actions, for as long as the bard continues to play and concentrate (up to a maximum of 1 round per bard level). So you can't use Fascinate if combat has started, and keeping the effect going ties up the Bard (standard action to continue to concentrate each round).

zugschef
2010-07-15, 01:04 AM
I think the designers were counting on the limitations being an acceptable safeguard.
probably... nevertheless, the base mechanic of this ability, namely setting a save dc with a skill check, is broken beyond repair. and this is no mistake like a broken spell or combination which leads to brokeness. it's simply a broken class feature which the second class in the phb has.

Bosh
2010-07-15, 01:31 AM
exactly. skills and saves do not work together since both increase by entirely different rates and use entirely different mechanics to begin with.

maybe someone said something like, "hey, we let hide checks set the dc for spot checks. it's ok to let perform set the save dc for fascinate."

when it came to truenaming they tried to nerf the way to set the dc instead of acknowledging that it's simply incompatible.

Or more generally: let's have a whole bunch of modifiers increase at different rates, choose a central mechanic in absolute differences rather than relative differnces matter and then give people a gazillion ways to hose people completely if their modifiers lag.

Runestar
2010-07-15, 02:15 AM
I am guessing wotc did not expect that players would aggressively stack all sorts of modifiers they could get their hands on. So they tried to "fix" this with the truenamer, where they probably assumed players would go all out to maximize their truename check, and thus set the DCs based on this assumption.

I also laugh when I see their advice in the MM about setting a monster's AC to be cr+13 on average. What, did their playtest fighters have str scores of 8? :smallsigh: