PDA

View Full Version : D&D Next Q&A: 04/04/2014



Lokiare
2014-04-04, 05:37 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140404


Will maneuvers simply make it easier for Battle Masters to do these things that anyone can try, or restrict other characters from trying to do them at all?


When you spend superiority dice to use maneuvers, do they just happen or is there some kind of check required?


Are all maneuvers granted by the fighter class, or can a fighter pick up more through options like feats?

archaeo
2014-04-04, 05:53 PM
So, good news for people who were worried they'd ban common physical actions outside of the maneuvers system? This seems like a pretty fun mechanic for people who want a crunchy fighter, though it also means the inclusion of a lot of 4e-style mechanics that are divisive.

Lokiare
2014-04-04, 06:03 PM
So, good news for people who were worried they'd ban common physical actions outside of the maneuvers system? This seems like a pretty fun mechanic for people who want a crunchy fighter, though it also means the inclusion of a lot of 4e-style mechanics that are divisive.

What exactly are the 4E style mechanics here? maneuvers are just feats or combat actions from 3.5E. 4E powers were much better because you attacked different defenses with different ability score bonuses and you did things that normal characters couldn't do. Everything I've seen so far is closer to 3.5E combat actions and feats.

archaeo
2014-04-04, 06:14 PM
What exactly are the 4E style mechanics here? maneuvers are just feats or combat actions from 3.5E. 4E powers were much better because you attacked different defenses with different ability score bonuses and you did things that normal characters couldn't do. Everything I've seen so far is closer to 3.5E combat actions and feats.

I was referring more to Commander's Strike and, though I don't think it has been mentioned, Come and Get It and the like. While I have no doubt that you're right about the origins of most of these powers, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that these represent a type of mechanic that the wider community has usually associated with 4E. One only has to look at the first few comments that trickled in after it was posted on WotC's site to see people complaining about "magic" mind control effects from a mundane source and others thanking the dev team for including a beloved 4Eism.

In the Q&A, it certainly sounded like attacking different defenses and doing things normal characters couldn't do would be included, or at least it was heavily implied. He says, "some maneuvers...allow the target a saving throw to resist some of the effects," which is obviously vague, but seems to leave it perfectly open for making an attack vs. various defensive stats.

Lokiare
2014-04-04, 08:13 PM
I was referring more to Commander's Strike and, though I don't think it has been mentioned, Come and Get It and the like. While I have no doubt that you're right about the origins of most of these powers, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that these represent a type of mechanic that the wider community has usually associated with 4E. One only has to look at the first few comments that trickled in after it was posted on WotC's site to see people complaining about "magic" mind control effects from a mundane source and others thanking the dev team for including a beloved 4Eism.

In the Q&A, it certainly sounded like attacking different defenses and doing things normal characters couldn't do would be included, or at least it was heavily implied. He says, "some maneuvers...allow the target a saving throw to resist some of the effects," which is obviously vague, but seems to leave it perfectly open for making an attack vs. various defensive stats.

How people reacted to it isn't important. What's important is that its not even close to what 4E brought to the table, so all they are doing is angering those that don't like 4E while at the same time making a mockery of what 4E was in terms of balanced tactical options, which will anger a lot of the 4E fans.

If they are going to include something, they need to go all in, not dabble and say "we hope you are happy, and you other people over there aren't offended."

Saving throws are nothing like attacking different defenses. You can't crit on a save and the math shakes out differently due to ability scores not scaling with level.

Then of course there is the fact that they said there were just a handful of maneuvers to choose from over 20 levels. That's equivalent to the PHB1 in 4E over maybe 2 levels max. I understand they don't want to go crazy like they did in 4E and have to make 3-4 choices per level, every level, but they need to have enough options to keep the "winnable challenge based on player choice" and the "express your personality or ideas with odd combinations" crowds happy.

I'm just not seeing it. I see no reason to play 5E over 4E or 3.5E or pathfinder at this time.

archaeo
2014-04-04, 08:34 PM
With all due respect, Lokiare, for someone with no interest in ever playing Next, you seem unusually motivated to discuss it.

vasharanpaladin
2014-04-04, 10:20 PM
With all due respect, Lokiare, for someone with no interest in ever playing Next, you seem unusually motivated to discuss it.

Likely because he holds a blue ring for it still, as I do. It may yet be that the actual game will be something we 4e fans would actually enjoy if they'd shut up and actually try it for a session or two, but until then, it's new so it sucks.

Me, I've also got a blue ring on, but I'm just leery of talking about it, or even getting too hopeful. Why? Because I'm the lone supporter in my group and I'll inevitably be drowned out by the "glorious spellcasting overlords" cynicism. Every time I bring it up turns into an argument, and the only way I'll convince them to try it is if I DM myself... and I'm already not trusted in that position. Morton's Fork, FML.

And please, don't suggest PbP as a solution, because my interest hexes them.

On-topic: This is the first major ray of hope I've seen for the fighter, even if it is still more generic than the homebrew warblade someone put up over on WotC's forum. Bit leery of it being called an ACF to a more generic "simple" version, still, but I'm confident that I'd play a Battle Master if given the opportunity. :smallbiggrin:

Kennisiou
2014-04-04, 10:29 PM
I've played a few sessions in 5e and honestly I'm really a huge fan. They definitely have not removed "glorious spellcasting overlords" but it's been drastically lessened compared to 3.5. It also does it without heavily homegenizing classes and mechanics as much s 4e did, which along with the system not really doing anything in terms of rules for out of combat (even by D&D standards compared to other tabletop games) is my main issue with what I otherwise find to be a fantastic tabletop system. 5e also manages to make the idea of actually building and customizing your classes outside of ability selection a bigger deal. Multiclassing is neat in 5e, and actually helpful when building to a concept. It's not quite got 3.5's depth or flexibility or 4e's balance, but it's a nice compromise that's really easily accessible.

Friv
2014-04-04, 10:44 PM
This does sound a lot better. Fingers crossed, maybe something good is on the way.

Lokiare
2014-04-04, 11:38 PM
With all due respect, Lokiare, for someone with no interest in ever playing Next, you seem unusually motivated to discuss it.

Its like in one of those horror movies where the clueless blonde hears a noise in the woods and being the super intelligent person that she is, goes over into the dark woods alone to investigate with no weapons and then gets slaughtered by whatever serial killer or undead zombie that happens to be lurking around the cabin.

To the outside viewer its obvious that she shouldn't do that, but the writers have her do it anyway because if everyone was smart the serial killer or undead zombie wouldn't claim any victims, they have to have several people die or its just not a good movie. The viewer finds themselves screaming at the blonde not to go out there, even though they know the movie has already been made and no amount of screaming and yelling will change the outcome.

or to use the most common analogy:

Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you want to turn away, but you just can't bring yourself to do it. You have to keep watching until the train comes to a complete stop, in horror the entire time.

I understand that some people like 5E, but many people view it as less than 3.5E, 4E, or Pathfinder. The things that some like 5E for others games just flat out do better. If I want bounded accuracy with very little scaling, I'll go play 2E. If I want lots of interesting options to craft a wild idea of a character I'll play 3.5E or Pathfinder. If I want lots of balanced tactical options I'll go play 4E. What does 5E have going for it? Simplicity? Not really 2E is much more simple. Nostalgia? Again, if I want to play a retroclone, I'll just go play the real thing a house ruled 2E or a retroclone that does everything right. About the only thing 5E has going for it that others don't at this point is current support, and really I can just convert Pathfinder Adventure Paths.

Also they keep claiming that 5E is supposed to unite the fan base. I would not have said a word about 5E if they had said it would turn out to be an average simplified 2E/3.5E retroclone. I would have been like "I'll see you guys at 6E.". They didn't they fed us a lot of hype about allowing all play styles and being the edition for everyone that's every played D&D and all that kind of stuff, which they still haven't retracted or corrected in any way.

Don't worry, when 6E comes around I'll be the first to petition for a game that everyone can play. Heck, I'm petitioning now for a "D&D:Tactics" spin off that is a cleaned up streamlined 4.75E to go side by side with the 5E retroclone they are putting out now. I don't think they have the business acumen to do that though, but that's beside the point.

Really, I'm still venting that they don't seem to understand the game they are creating, and any good ideas they stumble on are out of sheer statistical luck, rather than any actual talent or knowledge. When it comes out, I'll probably be silent for about a week before coming back to see many many people have problems with 5E and then I'll pull out the "I told you so" and put it in my signature for all to see.

Lokiare
2014-04-04, 11:49 PM
I've played a few sessions in 5e and honestly I'm really a huge fan. They definitely have not removed "glorious spellcasting overlords" but it's been drastically lessened compared to 3.5. It also does it without heavily homegenizing classes and mechanics as much s 4e did, which along with the system not really doing anything in terms of rules for out of combat (even by D&D standards compared to other tabletop games) is my main issue with what I otherwise find to be a fantastic tabletop system. 5e also manages to make the idea of actually building and customizing your classes outside of ability selection a bigger deal. Multiclassing is neat in 5e, and actually helpful when building to a concept. It's not quite got 3.5's depth or flexibility or 4e's balance, but it's a nice compromise that's really easily accessible.

When people call 4E homogenized, I have to wonder if they just glanced over the books or if they've actually played the game. So in your case have you played 4E through a few levels? (This is a serious question by the way, I just got out of another discussion where someone literally said "We didn't use 4E's powers when we tried it out, and the players just didn't like 4E at all")

When you lessen a nuclear weapon to just a explosive ballistic missile, should we be any happier when it still destroys the house we're in? Personally I don't think so. We should aim for reducing the nuclear weapon to an grenade launcher so it is comparable to everyone else's assault rifles.

As far as multiclassing goes, they didn't really solve any problems, just pushed them back a few levels. If you cross a caster and a non-caster you still get half the power of either which you can only use one or the other in a given round. So you lose some of the proficiency bonus you get for being martial and you only gain a single spell slot (as far as I recall). A much better solution would have been to use the 4E hybrid system, except open it up to being able to add classes at any level and any number of classes. It would literally have been the perfect system. You would get all the proficiency bonuses of your non-caster classes as well as all the caster bonuses for your caster classes. You're only trade off would be to choose between class features of all the classes you get. So you might have to choose between getting a bonus feat, gaining a school benefit, or gaining a Channel Divinity. You would still be just as effective on any given round when using your Fighter, Wizard, or Cleric class features or attacks, you would just have them split 3 ways, which is the whole point of a multiclass character.

Kennisiou
2014-04-05, 12:52 AM
When people call 4E homogenized, I have to wonder if they just glanced over the books or if they've actually played the game. So in your case have you played 4E through a few levels? (This is a serious question by the way, I just got out of another discussion where someone literally said "We didn't use 4E's powers when we tried it out, and the players just didn't like 4E at all")

When you lessen a nuclear weapon to just a explosive ballistic missile, should we be any happier when it still destroys the house we're in? Personally I don't think so. We should aim for reducing the nuclear weapon to an grenade launcher so it is comparable to everyone else's assault rifles.

As far as multiclassing goes, they didn't really solve any problems, just pushed them back a few levels. If you cross a caster and a non-caster you still get half the power of either which you can only use one or the other in a given round. So you lose some of the proficiency bonus you get for being martial and you only gain a single spell slot (as far as I recall). A much better solution would have been to use the 4E hybrid system, except open it up to being able to add classes at any level and any number of classes. It would literally have been the perfect system. You would get all the proficiency bonuses of your non-caster classes as well as all the caster bonuses for your caster classes. You're only trade off would be to choose between class features of all the classes you get. So you might have to choose between getting a bonus feat, gaining a school benefit, or gaining a Channel Divinity. You would still be just as effective on any given round when using your Fighter, Wizard, or Cleric class features or attacks, you would just have them split 3 ways, which is the whole point of a multiclass character.

I played 4e pretty regularly up until a year ago when the group I was playing with had some key members move away and I found a group that was playing 3.5e, which I prefer anyways. The classes occasionally introduced neat subsystems (assassin's shrouds in particular were cool), but for the most part they honestly all played like the other classes that had the same role. Rogue played like ranger played like assassin played kinda like monk (I never played monk and only ever had one at my table once, but I recall it being a little schizophrenic between being a controller, striker and defender with most emphasis on the striker?). While there were some cool mechanical tricks that made classes feel a little different from another, it wasn't really like in 3.5e where classes were wildly different with massive changes in subsystems or strategizing between two classes that in the end wanted to accomplish similar goals. I think the biggest thing for me was having a hard time differentiating warlock and sorceror as anything but sorc being "warlock with exploding dice." But the biggest gripe about 4e was how little focus there was on non-combat goals. Outside of a barely-present skill system class and build choices had almost no impact on what your characters did out of combat, and a lot of out of combat objectives were poorly defined, many not even being defined at all.

Have you ever crossed a caster with a non-caster in 3.5? "Half the power of both" isn't really how it works if you're building it properly thanks to the prestige classing system. If you build right, you generally wind up with "better HP damage output than most spellcasters since HP damage is the one thing melee's really good at and having spells to enhance that is a huge deal, with all or most of the out of combat flexibility of casters that makes them so useful (not to mention the in-combat options for turns when dealing damage is not possible or the best option, such as being able to buff/debuff/apply battlefield control)." And mix caster with non-caster isn't really the only purpose of multiclassing? At all? In 3.5e I tended to multiclass most in non-caster/minimal casting builds to nab all of the great stuff every non-caster class came frontloaded with, and I actually like that 5e is doing that pretty similarly. A lot of non-caster classes come frontloaded with nice features (rogue in particular -- expertise at l1 and an extra move action at level 2? and sneak attack progression? Hell, I'll probably dip 2 levels rogue in any non-caster build if it stays like that, and maybe even some caster ones). And that's what I liked about 3.5e multiclassing. It wasn't about splitting your focus three ways. It was about finding one focus and taking different classes that all enhanced that focus in different ways. 5e multiclassing isn't there yet, but the subclass system and the feats that let you "splash" casting/martial abilities on classes that don't normally have them are building a foundation that can go there. There's totally a chance they could tank it and everything would be awful, but considering their track record in my eyes (3e was rad, 4e was also rad but I didn't like it quite as much) I'm pretty hopeful that the game will expand into something I'll really enjoy playing. And if it doesn't, then I'm pretty happy with how it is now

Lokiare
2014-04-05, 02:24 PM
I played 4e pretty regularly up until a year ago when the group I was playing with had some key members move away and I found a group that was playing 3.5e, which I prefer anyways. The classes occasionally introduced neat subsystems (assassin's shrouds in particular were cool), but for the most part they honestly all played like the other classes that had the same role. Rogue played like ranger played like assassin played kinda like monk (I never played monk and only ever had one at my table once, but I recall it being a little schizophrenic between being a controller, striker and defender with most emphasis on the striker?). While there were some cool mechanical tricks that made classes feel a little different from another, it wasn't really like in 3.5e where classes were wildly different with massive changes in subsystems or strategizing between two classes that in the end wanted to accomplish similar goals. I think the biggest thing for me was having a hard time differentiating warlock and sorceror as anything but sorc being "warlock with exploding dice." But the biggest gripe about 4e was how little focus there was on non-combat goals. Outside of a barely-present skill system class and build choices had almost no impact on what your characters did out of combat, and a lot of out of combat objectives were poorly defined, many not even being defined at all.

Have you ever crossed a caster with a non-caster in 3.5? "Half the power of both" isn't really how it works if you're building it properly thanks to the prestige classing system. If you build right, you generally wind up with "better HP damage output than most spellcasters since HP damage is the one thing melee's really good at and having spells to enhance that is a huge deal, with all or most of the out of combat flexibility of casters that makes them so useful (not to mention the in-combat options for turns when dealing damage is not possible or the best option, such as being able to buff/debuff/apply battlefield control)." And mix caster with non-caster isn't really the only purpose of multiclassing? At all? In 3.5e I tended to multiclass most in non-caster/minimal casting builds to nab all of the great stuff every non-caster class came frontloaded with, and I actually like that 5e is doing that pretty similarly. A lot of non-caster classes come frontloaded with nice features (rogue in particular -- expertise at l1 and an extra move action at level 2? and sneak attack progression? Hell, I'll probably dip 2 levels rogue in any non-caster build if it stays like that, and maybe even some caster ones). And that's what I liked about 3.5e multiclassing. It wasn't about splitting your focus three ways. It was about finding one focus and taking different classes that all enhanced that focus in different ways. 5e multiclassing isn't there yet, but the subclass system and the feats that let you "splash" casting/martial abilities on classes that don't normally have them are building a foundation that can go there. There's totally a chance they could tank it and everything would be awful, but considering their track record in my eyes (3e was rad, 4e was also rad but I didn't like it quite as much) I'm pretty hopeful that the game will expand into something I'll really enjoy playing. And if it doesn't, then I'm pretty happy with how it is now

Yes, I played 3E extensively and what happened was that even with prestige classes if you multiclassed you were still at least 4-6 levels behind everyone else which was deadly. You basically had -4 to -6 to attack if you were part martial and you missed out on at least one extra attack possibly two. If you were part caster you were casting spells like a level 4 to 6 character when you were level 8 to 12 which means only the spells that are useful throughout a casters career were useful. Having to multiclass non-casters was a bug not a feature. You had to do that to get as many features as possible in order to even stand a chance of being relevant past level 7 or so.

As to your 4E comments, the Sorcerer and Warlock are wildly different. The Warlock punished people for attacking or approaching them and hits single or double targets with debilitating effects, while the Sorcerer is a blaster mainly dealing damage or causing zones of damage and then moving things in and out of them. The Rogue and Ranger are also wildly different. The Rogue in 4E stealths up and dodges from shadow to shadow stabbing people when they least expect it or if you go the ruffian or brutal route they are like light fighters that deal lots of damage while causing their opponents problems. The Ranger either stands toe to toe with enemies dancing around the battlefield dual attacking everything that moves or they stand far back raining down a hail of arrows on enemies. I see absolutely no similarities between the two.

Again, take a look at 4E hybrids and imagine being able to take a new hybrid class at any point when leveling up and as many as you want starting out. That would put their current system to shame. If you multiclass a caster with a non-caster then when they are doing non-caster attacks or actions they need to be as effective as a non-caster of the equivalent level. If they are casting a spell or using a caster's actions, then on that round they need to be as strong as a caster is. We aren't seeing that in 5E. We are seeing the opposite.

Edit: As for out of combat 4E had all the same subsystems as 3.5E did. It had DC's for breaking doors, picking locks, it had a system to help determine success or failure when dealing with NPCs and social situations, it had a system for pretty much everything (skill challenges) that you could do outside of combat. It did not lock you into spending class resources on crafting and professions, you simply told the DM you were a blacksmith because you had the martial practice for working metals, or you were a black market forger because you had the martial practice to forge documents. It had all the things you say were missing. If you can, name one out of combat system that was missing from 4E that was in 3.5E.

Stubbazubba
2014-04-05, 03:52 PM
When people call 4E homogenized, I have to wonder if they just glanced over the books or if they've actually played the game. So in your case have you played 4E through a few levels?

Wait, wait, let me get this straight: You've written off 5E after just having read (some of) the rules, but people can't write off 4E unless they've actually played through a few levels?

I don't mean to defend 5E, but even for a shameless edition warrior like yourself, that is astounding logic.

Lokiare
2014-04-05, 05:04 PM
Wait, wait, let me get this straight: You've written off 5E after just having read (some of) the rules, but people can't write off 4E unless they've actually played through a few levels?

I don't mean to defend 5E, but even for a shameless edition warrior like yourself, that is astounding logic.

First, I'm not an edition warrior, I'm a truth warrior. Second I took part in the play test and have seen nothing (articles, rumors, quotes, math, etc...etc...) that tells me the final game won't be very similar if not almost exactly like the play test. Thus I'm basing my opinion off of what I know which is quite a bit about 5E. That's entirely different from someone saying 4E is WoW and later admitting to never having played it or even bothered to read over the rules. Huge difference. One is an informed opinion and the other is an uninformed opinion.

I will change my tune if 5E comes out and is nothing like the play tests or the articles they've been putting out each week. Until then all we have to go on is the play test and their articles and a lack of any mention of change. Even the private play testers have said they haven't changed much since the final play test packet. It still has bounded accuracy, sparse class features, broken spells, and weak martial maneuvers. Unless you have new information, my opinion won't change.

I personally have no problem if people like 5E, from what I can see its not a game for me. I keep hoping for some bone to be thrown to the balanced tactical options crowd, but all I see is half hearted attempts to appease us instead of actually making the game work with us in mind. I've already explained over and over how they could do this and make the game appeal to everyone, but they aren't going that route, instead they are focusing on making an average (I'm being generous here) 2E/3.5E retroclone that is focused on nostalgia. It has some features I can ignore (some swingy math with adv/disadv), some features I actually like (magic items, starting equipment, backgrounds), and about 10 deal breakers (simple martials, complex casters, game breaking encounter ending spells, martial features at level 20 that are equivalent to level 3-4 spells, lack of balanced tactical options when leveling up and on each round of play, etc...etc...). I won't adopt it as my primary game system (and likely won't play it at all unless asked) if it has those deal breakers in it and it isn't as well done as my current system (4E). Have fun with it though.

12owlbears
2014-04-05, 05:19 PM
First, I'm not an edition warrior, I'm a truth warrior.
You do realize that makes you sound like even more of an addition warrior


I've already explained over and over how they could do this and make the game appeal to everyone.

Not really all you've done is compare 5e to 4e.

Lokiare
2014-04-05, 06:34 PM
You do realize that makes you sound like even more of an addition warrior

I don't care what it makes me sound like. I don't trash an edition ever. I trash specific mechanics by showing numerically where they fall apart. That is not edition warring. In fact several mechanics I've proven unsound can be found in multiple editions and I've even done this for 4E. So no, not even close to an edition warrior. I think that most people just have edition war PTSD and jump every time someone makes a comment that can be taken in a negative light about their edition without actually checking to see if its true or just an assumption or insult.


Not really all you've done is compare 5e to 4e.

Oh, I haven't done it in these forums, but if you really want, I could lay out my entire 30 page plan for you. Or you could just read some of my posts over on the WotC forums.

12owlbears
2014-04-05, 06:51 PM
I don't care what it makes me sound like. I don't trash an edition ever. I trash specific mechanics by showing numerically where they fall apart. That is not edition warring. In fact several mechanics I've proven unsound can be found in multiple editions and I've even done this for 4E. So no, not even close to an edition warrior. I think that most people just have edition war PTSD and jump every time someone makes a comment that can be taken in a negative light about their edition without actually checking to see if its true or just an assumption or insult.
Classic case of addition warrior denial :smallbiggrin:

Lokiare
2014-04-05, 07:53 PM
Classic case of addition warrior denial :smallbiggrin:

Facts please. All I see coming from you is name calling. Edition Warring is defined as denigrating an edition. I don't do that. I critique using math and facts specific mechanics. Others interpret any statement that can be construed as negative to be edition warring. For instance I've had this exchange happen:

Player 1 "Wow, your Wizard is powerful."
Player 2 "Quit edition warring, there is no such thing as LFQW and Fighters can go all day and don't have to rest, stop insulting 3.5E"

In fact let's see what everyone thinks. Which of these two situations is edition warring:

"The game assumes 4-5 average encounters per day. Wizards by 10th level have around 14 spells they can cast in a day many spells of any level can bring an encounter to a halt or turn it into a mop up. Therefore having 2-3 spells per encounter means the Wizard will likely over shadow other classes who have less or who cannot bring an encounter to a halt or turn them into mop ups in a single round with a single action."

"6.3245E is overpowered nonsense that is like WoW3 the Fighters can kill everything in an encounter and the Wizards are only good for using Tenser's Floating Disc to tote the Fighters treasure and gear around."

Hint, hint, its not the first one.

12owlbears
2014-04-05, 10:03 PM
Facts please. All I see coming from you is name calling. Edition Warring is defined as denigrating an edition. I don't do that. I critique using math and facts specific mechanics. Others interpret any statement that can be construed as negative to be edition warring. For instance I've had this exchange happen:

Player 1 "Wow, your Wizard is powerful."
Player 2 "Quit edition warring, there is no such thing as LFQW and Fighters can go all day and don't have to rest, stop insulting 3.5E"

In fact let's see what everyone thinks. Which of these two situations is edition warring:

"The game assumes 4-5 average encounters per day. Wizards by 10th level have around 14 spells they can cast in a day many spells of any level can bring an encounter to a halt or turn it into a mop up. Therefore having 2-3 spells per encounter means the Wizard will likely over shadow other classes who have less or who cannot bring an encounter to a halt or turn them into mop ups in a single round with a single action."

"6.3245E is overpowered nonsense that is like WoW3 the Fighters can kill everything in an encounter and the Wizards are only good for using Tenser's Floating Disc to tote the Fighters treasure and gear around."

Hint, hint, its not the first one.

I don't see how that's relevant to anything. I think your just using numbers to cover up your inner addition warrior. On a serious note I think your taking things too seriously.
Edit: I just realized how redundant that sounded.

Stubbazubba
2014-04-05, 11:51 PM
I will change my tune if 5E comes out and is nothing like the play tests or the articles they've been putting out each week. Until then all we have to go on is the play test and their articles and a lack of any mention of change. Even the private play testers have said they haven't changed much since the final play test packet. It still has bounded accuracy, sparse class features, broken spells, and weak martial maneuvers. Unless you have new information, my opinion won't change.

Again, I'm not defending 5E, it has all the flaws you say it does. I'll leave it at that.

Sploggle1
2014-04-06, 09:43 AM
Each edition had their pros and cons.

pre to 1e was well pre to 1e it stated everything. The small issue that I saw with this one is their were very few classes, but you could still have a hell of a good time with them.

2nd edition was a big improvement on 1e adding a few more classes and adding the thacco system that I wish they would bring back. Cause who doesn't want to call head shots.

3rd to 3.5 was a good system for newer players they simplified the whole system making the most used die a d20 instead of a d percentile. My only peeve with this issue is the whole cr and xp system. I'm sorry but a goblin is not worth more than 15 to me lol.

4th (From what I heard) Again simplified more to bring in the younger audience this system added many features as paragons(I hope i spelled that right) and powers. My only issue with this system is really easy to break. If you can kill a dragon at a low level with a wizard its to simple. If you can lock a dragon with two barbarians and have the rest of the party beat it down its to simple.

5e or now next. This system looks improved from 4th by trying to balance the mechanics. I liked how they raised the xp requirements but I dont like how they raised what everything was worth like goblins now being worth 100 xp (nope 15 with me lol)

This was just a simplified run of what I personally thought.

RedWarlock
2014-04-06, 02:37 PM
You do realize that XP is an entirely malleable number, right? You could easily change how much XP is given for any encounter, if you want a slower-progressing game. They based the progress on an average number of encounters per level.

(Now, if your argument is that you think goblins should be worth less XP than monsters of a similar challenge, you should back that up with reasons beyond 'just because'. Compare them in power to another 100 XP monster, and see if they're really worth THAT much less.)

Lokiare
2014-04-06, 09:25 PM
Each edition had their pros and cons.

pre to 1e was well pre to 1e it stated everything. The small issue that I saw with this one is their were very few classes, but you could still have a hell of a good time with them.

2nd edition was a big improvement on 1e adding a few more classes and adding the thacco system that I wish they would bring back. Cause who doesn't want to call head shots.

3rd to 3.5 was a good system for newer players they simplified the whole system making the most used die a d20 instead of a d percentile. My only peeve with this issue is the whole cr and xp system. I'm sorry but a goblin is not worth more than 15 to me lol.

4th (From what I heard) Again simplified more to bring in the younger audience this system added many features as paragons(I hope i spelled that right) and powers. My only issue with this system is really easy to break. If you can kill a dragon at a low level with a wizard its to simple. If you can lock a dragon with two barbarians and have the rest of the party beat it down its to simple.

5e or now next. This system looks improved from 4th by trying to balance the mechanics. I liked how they raised the xp requirements but I dont like how they raised what everything was worth like goblins now being worth 100 xp (nope 15 with me lol)

This was just a simplified run of what I personally thought.

Umm, I'm not sure where you are getting your information on 4E is very reliable. If you are going to comment on it you should try to play it or at least read up on the rules a bit. The base rules are more streamlined, not exactly simpler. They got rid of some rules that just got in the way, but put others in there that were absent from other editions. Each class has 2-3 class features starting out as well as starting with 2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily power. They gain feats every few levels just like 3.5E and they also continue to gain encounter and daily powers until they top out around 18 feats, 2 at-wills, 4 encounters, 4 dailies, and 7 utility powers at level 30. They can get a few less or more depending on if they have an Essentials class or a pre-E class.

Dragons in 4E can start at level 1 and go all the way up to level 40+ like any other monster so killing a dragon at 1st is working as intended as its probably a malnourished hatchling or something. Its also the edition that is hardest to break. In 1st through 3rd you can accidentally break the game in a multitude of ways by picking the wrong spell or getting a random magic item. In 4E you can still break the game, but you really have to optimize and there are a limited number of ways to do it. Its also equally difficult to make an underpowered character that is ineffective on accident. I recently tried to make a pacifist wizard in 4E that deals no damage at all and its still pretty effective.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say 'two barbarians locking a dragon down'. That sounds like bad DMing which is universal to all editions. When I do Dragons in 4E, they don't even get in range until they've softened up the party by using their flyby (attack in the middle of a flying move without provoking opportunity attacks) and breath weapon (extremely high damage for their level, cause special conditions that are usually 'save ends', and has a 33% chance of being able to use it again on any given round). There are ways to 'lock down' each monster but that's a feature. You have to figure out how to stop the things from killing you, that's the 'winnable fun as an obstacle course. Most solo monsters (like Dragons) had ways to mitigate conditions that would prevent them from attacking or would reduce their effectiveness in combat.

Really people should stop listening to rumors and actually look into the things they are talking about.

Saying 5E is more balanced than 4E is a huge laughable joke. Its more balanced than 3.5E, but its no where near as balanced as 4E.

12owlbears
2014-04-06, 10:27 PM
ect.
you know it's kind of hard to take your claims of not being a 4e addition warrior when you immediately blame any flews people point out as bad DMing :p . Now I have never played 4e because when it first came out their were no psionics and without psionics what's the point. I did eventually pick up the PHB4 than immediately put it back down once I reached the page on ardents. Regardless of the editions good qualities the fact that they turned my favorite (psionic)class in 3.5 to a slightly better divine mind makes 4e teh worrst addition evare . As for 5e I will probably ignore it until psionics get involved and after that I'll probably just complain that they nerfed psionics regardless of how 5e psionics actually work.

Lokiare
2014-04-06, 11:33 PM
you know it's kind of hard to take your claims of not being a 4e addition warrior when you immediately blame any flews people point out as bad DMing :p . Now I have never played 4e because when it first came out their were no psionics and without psionics what's the point. I did eventually pick up the PHB4 than immediately put it back down once I reached the page on ardents. Regardless of the editions good qualities the fact that they turned my favorite (psionic)class in 3.5 to a slightly better divine mind makes 4e teh worrst addition evare . As for 5e I will probably ignore it until psionics get involved and after that I'll probably just complain that they nerfed psionics regardless of how 5e psionics actually work.

And I stopped reading when you said "I've never played 4E". That's all the information I need from you about 4E. Thanks. I would no more comment on OD&D or 1E than I would on any other game I never sat down and read or played. I learned my lesson long ago when I first opened the 3.5E books and saw numbers that disagreed with my preconceived notions built on my experience with 2E and made the same mistake you and others are making. Without having read the PHB1 you probably cannot put the Ardent in context. If you do try, you'll likely weave in preconceptions from 3.5E and internet memes about 4E, WoW, and cool down timers.

The difference between someone having never played 4E and commenting on it and me commenting on 5E is that I have in fact played it and read it and kept up on all the news surrounding it and I've based my thoughts on what is available. I personally don't have a problem with some of the features of 5E, however there are many features that are deal breakers for me.

archaeo
2014-04-07, 07:03 AM
Gosh, so much to respond to. You'll forgive me for snipping a bit in the interest of space.


Its like in one of those horror movies where the clueless blonde hears a noise in the woods and being the super intelligent person that she is, goes over into the dark woods alone to investigate with no weapons and then gets slaughtered by whatever serial killer or undead zombie that happens to be lurking around the cabin...Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you want to turn away, but you just can't bring yourself to do it. You have to keep watching until the train comes to a complete stop, in horror the entire time.

But you're not really just passively observing the wreck, as it were. If 5E's development is a horror movie, you're the guy in the front row shouting at the idiot protagonist. If it's a train crash, you're standing in the midst of the bystanders telling everyone, at length, about how this train crash is the worst you've ever seen.


I understand that some people like 5E, but many people view it as less than 3.5E, 4E, or Pathfinder. The things that some like 5E for others games just flat out do better...Also they keep claiming that 5E is supposed to unite the fan base. I would not have said a word about 5E if they had said it would turn out to be an average simplified 2E/3.5E retroclone. I would have been like "I'll see you guys at 6E.". They didn't they fed us a lot of hype about allowing all play styles and being the edition for everyone that's every played D&D and all that kind of stuff, which they still haven't retracted or corrected in any way.

One imagines they haven't retracted it because it's still their core development goal, regardless of whether or not you agree they've accomplished it. It's only natural, after all, that 5E would fail to be as simple as 2E or a retroclone, or as tactical as 4E, or as wide-ranging as 3E or Pathfinder, since it's trying to mush all those qualities together in a single game. It's the gestalt that counts.

You're probably familiar with the tale of the blind men and the elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant). It serves quite well in illustrating the problem we players have in assessing 5E. An RPG is more than the sum of its constituent parts; given that you've said you're involved in video game development, I'm sure you understand that well. Despite the stream of information coming from the development team, we've still barely seen the outlines of the system in its entirety, much less how it plays in practice and in good faith.

Now, all that said, I'll cheerfully concede that I think you understand previous D&D editions far better than me, much less the details of the math and mechanics. But I don't think I need to have system mastery to say that the development team still seems to be pursuing its original goals and that it's still too early to tell how well they've accomplished them.


Don't worry, when 6E comes around I'll be the first to petition for a game that everyone can play. Heck, I'm petitioning now for a "D&D:Tactics" spin off that is a cleaned up streamlined 4.75E to go side by side with the 5E retroclone they are putting out now. I don't think they have the business acumen to do that though, but that's beside the point.

The business acumen to cannibalize their flagship product's market share? For one thing, it's telling 4E players that "D&D" is not for them, something I imagine many 4E players would be surprised to learn. For another, it would require hiring a second D&D team to create a second line of products, all of which would clutter up bookshelves and make it harder for the uninitiated to figure out how to break into the genre. And most importantly, it would require admitting total defeat; by sanctioning the fracturing of the player base, WotC would give up the idea of D&D as the flagship of PNP RPGs and would relegate itself to creating products aimed at particular sub-niches of an already niche market, a goal I doubt the company has any interest in pursuing.

That goes without saying that there's no evidence that the design team has jettisoned the whole "tactics module" thing they promised early on; for all we know, the DMG will include rules for transforming 5E into the chassis for 4.75E-like playstyle. With just what we know now, 5E will allow for players to pick "complex" subclasses within every class with lots of tactical crunch alongside rules for the miniature-and-battlemap play that encourages the beautiful tactical gameplay found in 4E.


Really, I'm still venting that they don't seem to understand the game they are creating, and any good ideas they stumble on are out of sheer statistical luck, rather than any actual talent or knowledge. When it comes out, I'll probably be silent for about a week before coming back to see many many people have problems with 5E and then I'll pull out the "I told you so" and put it in my signature for all to see.

See, it's the venom here that surprises me, the impulse to "vent." It's pretty illustrative of the power of "D&D," a brand that, to the initiated, means so much more than just a series of games. And it'd be one thing if it was directed solely at the designers; instead, that "I told you so" seems directed at everyone who's maintaining a shred of optimism about the whole thing. Which is why, I think, the idea of "edition warring" comes up.

12owlbears
2014-04-07, 09:08 AM
Without having read the PHB1 you probably cannot put the Ardent in context. If you do try, you'll likely weave in preconceptions from 3.5E and internet memes about 4E, WoW, and cool down timers.

At the risk of derailing this thread I might not understand the Ardent in a 4e context but I do understand it in a 3.5e context. The 3.5 ardent had 13 mantles in in 4e the ardent has 2(they might have added more in expansions). They took a class that had the capability to fill any role based on mantle choice and shoehorned it into one role. I don't know how the rest of the classes in 4e turned out but if it's anything like the ardent than my baseless dislike for the addition is completely justified .

Lokiare
2014-04-07, 06:35 PM
At the risk of derailing this thread I might not understand the Ardent in a 4e context but I do understand it in a 3.5e context. The 3.5 ardent had 13 mantles in in 4e the ardent has 2(they might have added more in expansions). They took a class that had the capability to fill any role based on mantle choice and shoehorned it into one role. I don't know how the rest of the classes in 4e turned out but if it's anything like the ardent than my baseless dislike for the addition is completely justified .

The 4E Ardent has 3 mantles and 169 powers spread over 30 levels. You can create an Ardent in 4E that can do just about anything with the use of feats, power choices, and a theme. At level 11 you can branch into many paragon paths that completely change up how your class works and what role you play. At level 21 you can again branch into an epic destiny that further shapes how your class works or what role you play.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/5801/what-class-builds-can-be-used-to-fulfill-both-striker-and-controller-roles

"The ardent and psion are excellent controller/strikers with demoralizing strike (it'll keep your entire career) for the ardent and dishearten and mind thrust for the psion. Both of these are in a way of soft control, debuffing defense or offense. The ardent actually can have better multi-target control dailies than the psion, due to the sheer amount of zone options she has."

Yep you can be a controller or a striker with an Ardent.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6976/how-to-make-a-party-work-without-a-defender

"The simplest thing is to make your ardent into a not completely worthless defender.

She should consider:

Energizing Strike (not hugely necessary in a dual-leader party, but always useful)
Intent Laid Bare (a pseudo-defender power, making the ardent quite sticky. The ardent, of course, needs to be using really good armor and a shield, but that has to be the case in any event.)

Wave of Fatigue: another pseudo-defender sticky, I'd say that intent laid bare is better at being a defender, while wave of fatigue is better at complementing a defender.

Guarded Prison: This gives you a punishing pseudo-mark and is required for the ardent to be able to be a "defender" Realize, of course, that most of her healing will be self focused."

Its naturally a leader, so with just power choices they can become any role you want.

You can take a closer look at the 4e Ardent here: http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2710301 the handbook is a little old, but it still has a summary of what each power does that came out with the ardent.

I have actually had players use Ardents to play controllers and strikers in my own games and a lot of people like to hybrid Ardent/Paladin for a really effective defender.

I understand if 4E isn't for you or you didn't like 4E. That's fine, but please don't spread rumors that simply aren't true about the game.

Kurald Galain
2014-04-07, 06:49 PM
Yep you can be a controller or a striker with an Ardent.

...what...

The ardent is a leader. It is neither a controller nor a striker, and while it surely has some damaging and debuffing powers (because every class does), that doesn't mean it can stand in for an actual controller or an actual striker.

Seriously. It's nice that one random post over at Stackexchange states differently, but it lists bladesingers as decent controllers, which are generally considered laughably bad. And then he lists the assassin as an "excellent" striker whereas most people would call it mediocre instead. I wouldn't call that post good advice for anyone. (edit) the CharOp Ardent handbook (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2710301) doesn't even mention control for them :smallbiggrin:

Ardents are still capable (if not top-notch) leaders, and there's nothing wrong with them. But that doesn't make them strikers or controllers.

Lokiare
2014-04-07, 06:57 PM
Gosh, so much to respond to. You'll forgive me for snipping a bit in the interest of space.



But you're not really just passively observing the wreck, as it were. If 5E's development is a horror movie, you're the guy in the front row shouting at the idiot protagonist. If it's a train crash, you're standing in the midst of the bystanders telling everyone, at length, about how this train crash is the worst you've ever seen.

Yes, I know. I can't help myself. I'm watching something I love being turned into a mockery of what it was, and I can't stand idly by and just let it happen. I have to do something.


One imagines they haven't retracted it because it's still their core development goal, regardless of whether or not you agree they've accomplished it. It's only natural, after all, that 5E would fail to be as simple as 2E or a retroclone, or as tactical as 4E, or as wide-ranging as 3E or Pathfinder, since it's trying to mush all those qualities together in a single game. It's the gestalt that counts.

Actually if they don't hit anyone's desired game and other games do it better guess where people are going to go? Yep, that's right we'll all sit around and play 5E despite other games doing it better. :p but seriously, people are going to play the games that work better for what they want out of the game and right now that would be Pathfinder and 4E. I don't think I've seen anyone say they will put 5E as their main game over 4E or Pathfinder yet. There are some people that will buy anything with the D&D logo on it, but I think that group is getting smaller and smaller each year.


You're probably familiar with the tale of the blind men and the elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant). It serves quite well in illustrating the problem we players have in assessing 5E. An RPG is more than the sum of its constituent parts; given that you've said you're involved in video game development, I'm sure you understand that well. Despite the stream of information coming from the development team, we've still barely seen the outlines of the system in its entirety, much less how it plays in practice and in good faith.

Actually it doesn't serve well at all. We've seen the core game, we've read the articles. We've watched them play the full game in videos and at conventions. We've gotten confirmation that some number tweaking is all that is going on behind the scenes in the private play test. Unless the game doesn't resemble the play test by more than 50%, we have enough information to say that this is in fact an elephant.

We've actually seen the system in its entirety minus some minor math adjustment, we've seen them play the full game in videos and at conventions. So we do in fact have enough information to make a determination.


Now, all that said, I'll cheerfully concede that I think you understand previous D&D editions far better than me, much less the details of the math and mechanics. But I don't think I need to have system mastery to say that the development team still seems to be pursuing its original goals and that it's still too early to tell how well they've accomplished them.

I disagree. You probably have more understanding of your favorite edition than I do (as long as its not 4e). I've pointed out over and over how they are failing in their goals after each article or play test, no one has used facts, math, and quotes to refute me on this yet.


The business acumen to cannibalize their flagship product's market share? For one thing, it's telling 4E players that "D&D" is not for them, something I imagine many 4E players would be surprised to learn. For another, it would require hiring a second D&D team to create a second line of products, all of which would clutter up bookshelves and make it harder for the uninitiated to figure out how to break into the genre. And most importantly, it would require admitting total defeat; by sanctioning the fracturing of the player base, WotC would give up the idea of D&D as the flagship of PNP RPGs and would relegate itself to creating products aimed at particular sub-niches of an already niche market, a goal I doubt the company has any interest in pursuing.

Actually they won't capture very much of the 4E market anyway, so its a loss if they don't do it. They wouldn't need multiple teams, just a localization team to convert from one format to the other. Going into adventure modules and changing "4 goblins and a leader" to "3 goblin cutters, 2 goblin archers, and 1 goblin hexer" is not that time or effort consuming.

As to the rest of your statement above, Yes at some point WotC will have to face up to reality and accept that the market is fractured and there isn't any going back. They'll see that shortly after 5E hits the shelves anyway. Unless they actually made a game that had different optional modules that could be swapped out to customize the game to any given play style, they will never 'unite the fan base' as they are trying with 5e.

The trick to success is to make as few products as you can that get as many customers as they can. Its not 'make one game to rule them all'. that's a recipe for disaster and if they made 2 games that covered 95% of the RPG market, then it would be a great success because a lot of the fluff material, maps, artwork, adventures, campaign settings, etc...etc... could be re-used between the two games saving quite a bit of money for quite a bit of profit. As I said, I don't think they have the business acumen to pull it off though.


That goes without saying that there's no evidence that the design team has jettisoned the whole "tactics module" thing they promised early on; for all we know, the DMG will include rules for transforming 5E into the chassis for 4.75E-like playstyle. With just what we know now, 5E will allow for players to pick "complex" subclasses within every class with lots of tactical crunch alongside rules for the miniature-and-battlemap play that encourages the beautiful tactical gameplay found in 4E.

What they called the 'tactics module' was a joke. It did not appeal to many of the 'fun as an obstacle course with a clear win condition, winnable based on the choices of the players' 4e fans. So even if they did bring it out, its unlikely that it would win them back their fans, unless it was extremely lengthy and changed quite a few fundamental assumptions of the game.


See, it's the venom here that surprises me, the impulse to "vent." It's pretty illustrative of the power of "D&D," a brand that, to the initiated, means so much more than just a series of games. And it'd be one thing if it was directed solely at the designers; instead, that "I told you so" seems directed at everyone who's maintaining a shred of optimism about the whole thing. Which is why, I think, the idea of "edition warring" comes up.

Where's the venom? My statements are neutral. Any emotional context is added by you. I guess many people are just taught that to say anything negative about something no matter how constructive is somehow wrong or bad. We should purge that ideology from our culture as it can only lead to disaster "Uh, sir your house is on fire." "Quit being so negative, look on the positive side, I can stop paying my mortgage off and I get insurance money."

Lokiare
2014-04-07, 07:05 PM
...what...

The ardent is a leader. It is neither a controller nor a striker, and while it surely has some damaging and debuffing powers (because every class does), that doesn't mean it can stand in for an actual controller or an actual striker.

Seriously. It's nice that one random post over at Stackexchange states differently, but it lists bladesingers as decent controllers, which are generally considered laughably bad. And then he lists the assassin as an "excellent" striker whereas most people would call it mediocre instead. I wouldn't call that post good advice for anyone. (edit) the CharOp Ardent handbook (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2710301) doesn't even mention control for them :smallbiggrin:

Ardents are still capable (if not top-notch) leaders, and there's nothing wrong with them. But that doesn't make them strikers or controllers.

They can be made to be any of the roles. I've seen it in my games. Its a matter of what you define each role as. If you mean you have to have a class feature that performs the roles function, then no Ardents are not anything but a leader. If you mean they must be as good if not better than a class of the desired role, well of course they aren't going to be better at it than one that is designed to do it, however if you define a role as being able to do the functions of that role adequately, then yes Ardents can defend, strike, control, and lead.

Because Ardent's get many at-will powers they have a unique advantage in that they can pick powers that fulfill a roles requirements and then proceed to use them every round of every fight. There is even a set of options where they gain back power points during certain circumstances during battle which can then be used to enhance their at-will powers to support a role better.

Are they the best at these other roles? Of course not.

Can they perform the duties of those roles? Yes, and in some cases they do quite well.

This is all before looking at how backgrounds can give you max starting hp by allowing you to use your highest stat for hp instead of constitution or how a themes features and swappable utility powers can be used to fortify a non-leader role if you choose one. Then there are feats that grant role like abilities that you can tack onto your powers.

I would even think you could make an Ardent better at any given role than the worse class in that role. What do you think?

Kurald Galain
2014-04-07, 07:16 PM
They can be made to be any of the roles.
Not really: they lack the off-action attacks to be a striker, they're missing the area effect debuffs for a controller, and they don't have the stickiness of a defender either.


if you define a role as being able to do the functions of that role adequately, then yes Ardents can defend, strike, control, and lead.
Yes, I define it like that, and no I don't believe ardents can do that, nor do the rulebooks say they can, nor have I ever seen them perform any role except leader. But feel free to post your builds to show that. Although I must say I've never seen a 3E Ardent played, so it may be the case that a 3E Ardent is pretty much restricted to one party role as well. If so, then the 4E Ardent would be a good counterpart.



That goes without saying that there's no evidence that the design team has jettisoned the whole "tactics module" thing they promised early on; for all we know, the DMG will include rules for transforming 5E into the chassis for 4.75E-like playstyle. With just what we know now, 5E will allow for players to pick "complex" subclasses within every class with lots of tactical crunch alongside rules for the miniature-and-battlemap play that encourages the beautiful tactical gameplay found in 4E.
I would be impressed to see this idea in practice.

Stubbazubba
2014-04-07, 07:46 PM
The trick to success is to make as few products as you can that get as many customers as they can. Its not 'make one game to rule them all'. that's a recipe for disaster and if they made 2 games that covered 95% of the RPG market, then it would be a great success because a lot of the fluff material, maps, artwork, adventures, campaign settings, etc...etc... could be re-used between the two games saving quite a bit of money for quite a bit of profit. As I said, I don't think they have the business acumen to pull it off though.

You honestly think there's enough of a market to recoup the costs of two full RPGs competing against each other, even with some re-used assets? That seems like a huge gamble in a tiny-but-fickle market. They would have to somehow be sure that 4e players and 3.5e players were two distinct markets with no significant overlap whatsoever. I, for one, don't get that impression; outside of the internet, the vast majority of RPers I know have played both and don't care about the differences between the two. 3.5/PF is more accessible because it's free online, but other than that the average RPG consumer just plays whatever the group is playing. We here are a minority, if my experience is any guide. Trying to market two different games to that majority won't work because they don't readily identify themselves as a "3.5 fan" or a "4e fan," they're just playing what everyone else is. You create potential option paralysis for the uninitiated and decrease the effectiveness of the next edition's network effects no matter what. Supporting two games simultaneously requires resources that fracturing the player base further certainly won't help bring in. It dilutes the brand, and that's WotC's strongest asset at this point.

I'd rather they focus on core game-play engagement, which they would have to figure out first. Build an unassuming but very polished game this time around, just to rebuild the trust with the community and try to bridge some of the fissures. Then keep a running beta open where new things are tried out, and publish supplements for what works (of course they'd also have to figure out how to actually determine "what works"), and when you have enough ideas for a new edition, make one. Of course it'll have to be both evolutionary and revolutionary, a little bit of each, and not make a clean break with what has come before, but that's the way to stay on top of this fickle market: don't offend anyone too much.

4e could have been a much bigger success if they had not maliciously thrown 3.5 under the bus to try to drive adoption and had actually listened to feedback and responded professionally. Instead they made enemies out of what should have been evangelists, and 4E's market penetration never reached 3.5's because of its diminished network strength (and more restricted distribution channels, but monetizing the OGL is super tricky. Now there would be some business acumen!)

Kennisiou
2014-04-07, 08:05 PM
Yes, I define it like that, and no I don't believe ardents can do that, nor do the rulebooks say they can, nor have I ever seen them perform any role except leader. But feel free to post your builds to show that. Although I must say I've never seen a 3E Ardent played, so it may be the case that a 3E Ardent is pretty much restricted to one party role as well. If so, then the 4E Ardent would be a good counterpart.
.

3E ardent has a mantle that allows them to cast spells, iirc. They are a class that can, in fact, kind of do everything.

Also, due to some poor wording that never got errata'd, 3E ardent can also gain access to level 9 powers and lots of PP with only one level of ardent, meaning by RAW you can use them for some serious shenanigans (although most DMs don't really allow that kind of ridiculousness).

Lokiare
2014-04-07, 09:23 PM
Not really: they lack the off-action attacks to be a striker, they're missing the area effect debuffs for a controller, and they don't have the stickiness of a defender either.

Strikers don't require off turn attacks, they require lots of damage. Area debuffs are not required, just debuffs, or the ability to exert control over creatures on the battlefield. They actually have the stickiness of a defender through the use of their powers.


Yes, I define it like that, and no I don't believe ardents can do that, nor do the rulebooks say they can, nor have I ever seen them perform any role except leader. But feel free to post your builds to show that. Although I must say I've never seen a 3E Ardent played, so it may be the case that a 3E Ardent is pretty much restricted to one party role as well. If so, then the 4E Ardent would be a good counterpart.

I haven't seen a 3E ardent either, but 3E has no defined roles, so how could it fill something that doesn't exist?


I would be impressed to see this idea in practice.

I would be impressed too, WotC would have someone been able to bend time and space to make the impossible happen, or the thing would be the half the size of the PHB and rewrite about half the core rules. Either way I'm all for it.

Here are a few quick builds that do each of the roles:


Controller
Theme: Noble Adept for the extra PP which can be used to make enemies slowed and prone in burst 1.
1st level: At-Will (Wave of Fatigue: Great at slowing targets), Dailies (Foretaste of Death: can't get CA, can't Flank, and grants CA), Feats: World serpents Grasp to add prone to Wave of Fatigue.

Striker - Similar to the Sorcerer you deal damage + 2 ability score mods. Unlike the Sorcerer you can use a feat to get a weapon like the Full Blade to deal 1d12 on each hit as well as an extra die on crits. Half-elf is a good race to choose because you can grab twin-strike and make it at-will with your first paragon feat. It also has the stats you need.
Theme: Noble Adept (might require you to grab an implement feat if you want attack and damage bonuses), nice extra PP which recover on short rests means you can augment your at-wills more often making you an area striker rather than a single target striker. Some of the powers are worth taking also since they grant more PP if you take them. You could take them and never use them, just use the PP to augment your massive damage at-will. Or you could go with Mercenary, for the Take Down Strike power.
1st level: At-wills (Demoralizing strike: lowers defenses for more hits, Karmic Bond: Adds your Con to the damage of the next hit the target takes before the end of your next turn Augment2=2[W] + Con damage to all hits before end of next), Dailies (Recursive Emotions: 1[w] + 5 ongoing damage and each time the target makes a save another creature takes Ability mod damage), Feats: either Weapon Proficiency (Full Blade), Bloodied Enmity (+1d6 damage when bloodied for a round),
You could do more, but I'm not going to spend all day looking through powers).

Defender
Background: The one that let's you use your highest stat for your hp instead of con.
Theme: Gladiator, or once again Noble Adept for the extra PP, which can be used to sticky more targets.
1st Level: At-will (Intent Laid Bare: prevents the target from shifting and if you augment, it gets a penalty to you. There is your stickyness, it can be used unaugmented as an MBA.),
3rd Level: At-Will (Distracting Strike: Marks the target, augment 2: marks all adjacent targets.)
With dailies that give you regenerating thp and other things like that, you won't have to worry about less hp than a normal defender.


I'm sure someone more familiar with Ardents could do much better and outline them through all 30 levels. However they make decent characters at any role.

Lokiare
2014-04-07, 09:38 PM
You honestly think there's enough of a market to recoup the costs of two full RPGs competing against each other, even with some re-used assets? That seems like a huge gamble in a tiny-but-fickle market. They would have to somehow be sure that 4e players and 3.5e players were two distinct markets with no significant overlap whatsoever. I, for one, don't get that impression; outside of the internet, the vast majority of RPers I know have played both and don't care about the differences between the two. 3.5/PF is more accessible because it's free online, but other than that the average RPG consumer just plays whatever the group is playing. We here are a minority, if my experience is any guide. Trying to market two different games to that majority won't work because they don't readily identify themselves as a "3.5 fan" or a "4e fan," they're just playing what everyone else is. You create potential option paralysis for the uninitiated and decrease the effectiveness of the next edition's network effects no matter what. Supporting two games simultaneously requires resources that fracturing the player base further certainly won't help bring in. It dilutes the brand, and that's WotC's strongest asset at this point.

I'd rather they focus on core game-play engagement, which they would have to figure out first. Build an unassuming but very polished game this time around, just to rebuild the trust with the community and try to bridge some of the fissures. Then keep a running beta open where new things are tried out, and publish supplements for what works (of course they'd also have to figure out how to actually determine "what works"), and when you have enough ideas for a new edition, make one. Of course it'll have to be both evolutionary and revolutionary, a little bit of each, and not make a clean break with what has come before, but that's the way to stay on top of this fickle market: don't offend anyone too much.

4e could have been a much bigger success if they had not maliciously thrown 3.5 under the bus to try to drive adoption and had actually listened to feedback and responded professionally. Instead they made enemies out of what should have been evangelists, and 4E's market penetration never reached 3.5's because of its diminished network strength (and more restricted distribution channels, but monetizing the OGL is super tricky. Now there would be some business acumen!)

Actually we know that the money is there. 4E Pre-Essentials was making quite a bit of money by most estimates all while Pathfinder was pulling even. Meaning the market is big enough, even if its the same people buying both sets of books. They wouldn't be competing against themselves, they would be grabbing both sets of people instead of one.

Your position rests on the assumption that 4E wasn't successful, when the numbers show it was as successful as 3.5E, right up until Essentials came out and everyone lost interest. The reason for the switchover to 5E has more to do with Hasbro than anything else. Of course if 5E managed to capture the entire TTRPG market it still wouldn't make enough to please Hasbro.

Edit: Recoup the costs? Absolutely. Make a decent profit? pretty good chance. Make enough money to make Hasbro happy? Not a chance.

12owlbears
2014-04-08, 12:28 AM
ect.

Wow 3 mantles that's only 10 les than what the 3.5 ardent got and I get to start customizing my character at lv11. Not only that but apparently the ardent gets a handful of powers that fit other roles, GREAT NOW I CAN BE A HALF ASSED CONTROLER INSTED OF A SLIGHTLY HALF ASSED LEADER. That sure puts the 3.5 ardents ability to effectively fill numerous roles to shame. Wait theirs more I can hybrid it with a paladin :smalleek: now I can be a meet shield and have role playing restrictions. Well fooy on that lame old 3.5 ardent and their effective synergy with every wis based class do to their unique power selection mechanic. Well this just proves it the 4e ardent is not the pale shadow of it's 3.5e counterpart at all because shadows at least have some resemblance to their original form

theNater
2014-04-08, 12:54 AM
At the risk of derailing this thread I might not understand the Ardent in a 4e context but I do understand it in a 3.5e context. The 3.5 ardent had 13 mantles in in 4e the ardent has 2(they might have added more in expansions). They took a class that had the capability to fill any role based on mantle choice and shoehorned it into one role. I don't know how the rest of the classes in 4e turned out but if it's anything like the ardent than my baseless dislike for the addition is completely justified .
A class that can do anything is one poorly thought-out feat from being a class that can do everything. So it was a deliberate design choice to make it so no class could cover all roles. The flipside is that almost all classes can fill their described role solidly, and most classes can fill one or two other roles tolerably.

This means that the tier 1 and 2 classes(including Ardent, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric) suffered a massive reduction in capability, while the tier 5 classes(like Fighter, Monk, and Paladin) saw a massive increase in capability.

Kurald Galain
2014-04-08, 02:46 AM
You honestly think there's enough of a market to recoup the costs of two full RPGs competing against each other, even with some re-used assets?
Recoup the cost, yes. Make a sizeable profit, no. Also, there's no way Pathfinder and 5E combined are going to hold a 95% market share.


the average RPG consumer just plays whatever the group is playing.
This is key, yes. Ultimately, the value of an RPG system is not in how good or balanced its ruleset is, but in how easy it is to find a group that plays it. If you hold the best RPG in the world but your friends all want to play something else, then your best RPG stays on the shelf.


Wow 3 mantles that's only 10 les than what the 3.5 ardent got and I get to start customizing my character at lv11.
Yeah, it's annoying. Also, I should point out that (according to WOTC's statistics) most campaigns never reach level 11.

Stubbazubba
2014-04-08, 06:04 AM
Meaning the market is big enough, even if its the same people buying both sets of books. They wouldn't be competing against themselves, they would be grabbing both sets of people instead of one.

You missed my point that there aren't actually two sets of people. There's mostly just one, the casual player who doesn't spend their time on RP forums. They might buy and learn and consistently play two different games, but that is not what we assume. We assume they have limited money and time, so they buy, learn, and play one game over another, and that will be determined by whichever one is most popular with their group or in their area. Now one of four things can happen:


The basic game proves much more popular than the tactical game, so the tactical game gets canned.
The tactical game proves much more popular than the basic game, so the basic game gets canned.
They are evenly popular, so the market is now divided and you're putting double the support costs into maintaining the same market.
They are both unpopular and everyone keeps playing what they already have.


You might be right that there are really two distinct markets, one that likes 4E and one that likes 3.5, and in that case doing as you suggest would be best, but I think that is a skewed perception based on the internet; in reality, I think the casual player outweighs the opinionated player probably at least 3 or 4 to 1.


Your position rests on the assumption that 4E wasn't successful, when the numbers show it was as successful as 3.5E

I'd like to see those numbers, specifically the ones from 3.5 to compare. I never said 4E wasn't successful, I know it brought a lot of revenue in, much more than anything else on the market at the time, but we simply don't know how successful 3.5 was to compare, nor do we know how expensive 4E was to support. The real interesting question would be to see if 4E replaced 3.5 for most or if it just complemented it.

12owlbears
2014-04-08, 07:46 AM
A class that can do anything is one poorly thought-out feat from being a class that can do everything. So it was a deliberate design choice to make it so no class could cover all roles. The flipside is that almost all classes can fill their described role solidly, and most classes can fill one or two other roles tolerably.

This means that the tier 1 and 2 classes(including Ardent, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric) suffered a massive reduction in capability, while the tier 5 classes(like Fighter, Monk, and Paladin) saw a massive increase in capability.
The ardent was tier 3 it could fill one role and be very good at that role, but it could also do other things without failing miserably. Why should my favorite class get de-powered because Wotc can't make a decent fighter. Also it's not just the mechanics of the ardent that changed they completely re-wrote the fluff. Instead of being a manifester that focused on contemplating the nature of their mantles 4e made them into some sort over emotional paladin.

Lokiare
2014-04-08, 09:46 PM
Wow 3 mantles that's only 10 les than what the 3.5 ardent got and I get to start customizing my character at lv11. Not only that but apparently the ardent gets a handful of powers that fit other roles, GREAT NOW I CAN BE A HALF ASSED CONTROLER INSTED OF A SLIGHTLY HALF ASSED LEADER. That sure puts the 3.5 ardents ability to effectively fill numerous roles to shame. Wait theirs more I can hybrid it with a paladin :smalleek: now I can be a meet shield and have role playing restrictions. Well fooy on that lame old 3.5 ardent and their effective synergy with every wis based class do to their unique power selection mechanic. Well this just proves it the 4e ardent is not the pale shadow of it's 3.5e counterpart at all because shadows at least have some resemblance to their original form


You missed my point that there aren't actually two sets of people. There's mostly just one, the casual player who doesn't spend their time on RP forums. They might buy and learn and consistently play two different games, but that is not what we assume. We assume they have limited money and time, so they buy, learn, and play one game over another, and that will be determined by whichever one is most popular with their group or in their area. Now one of four things can happen:


The basic game proves much more popular than the tactical game, so the tactical game gets canned.
The tactical game proves much more popular than the basic game, so the basic game gets canned.
They are evenly popular, so the market is now divided and you're putting double the support costs into maintaining the same market.
They are both unpopular and everyone keeps playing what they already have.


You might be right that there are really two distinct markets, one that likes 4E and one that likes 3.5, and in that case doing as you suggest would be best, but I think that is a skewed perception based on the internet; in reality, I think the casual player outweighs the opinionated player probably at least 3 or 4 to 1.



I'd like to see those numbers, specifically the ones from 3.5 to compare. I never said 4E wasn't successful, I know it brought a lot of revenue in, much more than anything else on the market at the time, but we simply don't know how successful 3.5 was to compare, nor do we know how expensive 4E was to support. The real interesting question would be to see if 4E replaced 3.5 for most or if it just complemented it.

This http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History says that 3.5E D&D was a 25-30 million a year business.

I'll come back later with the quote from one of the developers that 4E was doing as well as 3.5E at the time later. I'm out of time.

theNater
2014-04-10, 12:33 PM
Why should my favorite class get de-powered because Wotc can't make a decent fighter.
WotC can make a decent fighter; the 4e fighter is absolutely decent(or better). The 4e ardent is also decent, and you're complaining because decent is a significant step down from where it was in 3.5.

12owlbears
2014-04-11, 01:38 PM
The 4e ardent is also decent, and you're complaining because decent is a significant step down from where it was in 3.5.

Yeah what's your point I've been complaining about this since Ardents were first mentioned because it is a problem for me that one of my favorite classes was rewritten to the point that it became unrecognizable.

obryn
2014-04-11, 02:13 PM
Yeah what's your point I've been complaining about this since Ardents were first mentioned because it is a problem for me that one of my favorite classes was rewritten to the point that it became unrecognizable.
I don't think you can say it was rewritten, when it's a different edition and the character fills a completely different role. :smallsmile:

It's a very solid class in 4e, when judged on its own merits. It can stand with any other leader in the game, and can hit all of the "big 4" - healing, saves, enabling, and buffing.

Lokiare
2014-04-11, 06:44 PM
I don't think you can say it was rewritten, when it's a different edition and the character fills a completely different role. :smallsmile:

It's a very solid class in 4e, when judged on its own merits. It can stand with any other leader in the game, and can hit all of the "big 4" - healing, saves, enabling, and buffing.

Not to mention it makes a nice secondary striker, defender, or controller with the proper choices.

12owlbears
2014-04-13, 05:11 PM
I don't think you can say it was rewritten, when it's a different edition and the character fills a completely different role. :smallsmile:


the re written comment referred mostly to the fluff changes and the general change of the class from being a customizable yet balanced manifester to a better version of the divine mind. Honestly if they didn't call it the Ardent I probably wouldn't even care.

Kurald Galain
2014-04-14, 03:22 AM
I don't think you can say it was rewritten, when it's a different edition and the character fills a completely different role. :smallsmile:
That's what the word "rewritten" means :smallamused:


It's a very solid class in 4e, when judged on its own merits. It can stand with any other leader in the game, and can hit all of the "big 4" - healing, saves, enabling, and buffing.
Yes, it's still a solid class, but it's a very versatile class in 3E whereas in 4E it's just a leader that doesn't work in any of the other roles. It's simply a consequence of the role system; for instance, a 3E sorcerer is also very versatile, whereas a 4E sorcerer is just a striker. There are a few classes in 4E that can step outside their assigned combat role, but ardents and sorcerers clearly aren't among them.

So the point is that there's nothing wrong with these classes in 4E, but you just shouldn't expect it to work like they did in other editions.

Lokiare
2014-04-14, 04:10 AM
That's what the word "rewritten" means :smallamused:


Yes, it's still a solid class, but it's a very versatile class in 3E whereas in 4E it's just a leader that doesn't work in any of the other roles. It's simply a consequence of the role system; for instance, a 3E sorcerer is also very versatile, whereas a 4E sorcerer is just a striker. There are a few classes in 4E that can step outside their assigned combat role, but ardents and sorcerers clearly aren't among them.

So the point is that there's nothing wrong with these classes in 4E, but you just shouldn't expect it to work like they did in other editions.

Didn't I just prove that the Ardent can do every role in the game adequately? They literally get at-will powers that are as good as or better than each roles class feature. With the right background, theme, power, and feat choices an Ardent can fill any role in 4E.

12owlbears
2014-04-14, 12:06 PM
Didn't I just prove that the Ardent can do every role in the game adequately? They literally get at-will powers that are as good as or better than each roles class feature. With the right background, theme, power, and feat choices an Ardent can fill any role in 4E.

yes but other classes get powers and class features to fill their roll meaning they will always be better. If you try to make the 4e ardent fill a role other than the one that the class is built for you only get a lame master of none the 3e ardent could be built to do any one thing very well and do other things admirably.

Kurald Galain
2014-04-14, 12:20 PM
Didn't I just prove that the Ardent can do every role in the game adequately? They literally get at-will powers that are as good as or better than each roles class feature.
They clearly don't. They lack the off-action attacks to be a striker, they lack the mark/punishment mechanics to be a defender, and they lack the multi-target debuffs to be a controller (hint: there's much more to a class than having a "roles class feature"). Let's face it, ardents are a leader, and they're competent at that, but it has always been 4E's design that no class can do all four roles, and ardents are in no way an exception to that. You might as well claim that rogues are a leader because they can multiclass to cleric :smallamused:


yes but other classes get powers and class features to fill their roll meaning they will always be better. If you try to make the 4e ardent fill a role other than the one that the class is built for you only get a lame master of none the 3e ardent could be built to do any one thing very well and do other things admirably.
Yep, this.

No, having a power that deals damage doesn't make you a striker. Having a power that inflicts dazed doesn't make you a controller. And having a power that gives enemies a to hit penalty doesn't make you a defender either.

Lokiare
2014-04-14, 05:34 PM
yes but other classes get powers and class features to fill their roll meaning they will always be better. If you try to make the 4e ardent fill a role other than the one that the class is built for you only get a lame master of none the 3e ardent could be built to do any one thing very well and do other things admirably.

Actually no. They get a certain number of at-will powers every few levels and then they can pick powers when they gain them to boost their chosen role. They might not be in the top 3 of that role, but they are also not in the bottom 3. For instance the one that marks an enemy, then if you spend 2 power points it marks all adjacent enemies you hit with the power. That's at least as good as the Fighters mark. Then you can pick daily powers that complement that power by giving targets incentives to attack you. Because of the way they break from the AEDU mold, they get many at-will powers that can be augmented. At higher levels they can augment lower level powers almost every round.


They clearly don't. They lack the off-action attacks to be a striker, they lack the mark/punishment mechanics to be a defender, and they lack the multi-target debuffs to be a controller (hint: there's much more to a class than having a "roles class feature"). Let's face it, ardents are a leader, and they're competent at that, but it has always been 4E's design that no class can do all four roles, and ardents are in no way an exception to that. You might as well claim that rogues are a leader because they can multiclass to cleric :smallamused:


Yep, this.

No, having a power that deals damage doesn't make you a striker. Having a power that inflicts dazed doesn't make you a controller. And having a power that gives enemies a to hit penalty doesn't make you a defender either.

We've been over this, there are many striker classes that don't have off-turn attacks like the Sorcerer and Slayer which are lacking in those. They have the mark/punishement mechanics to be a defender by having at-wills that mark and prevent shifting and at-wills that cause them to not be able to attack anyone but the battlemind. They have multi-target debuffs when they augment their at-wills into bursts. It almost looks like you've been ignoring my posts and haven't bothered to read the Ardent in 4E. Do you play 4E? Or are you another 3E fan making claims about a game they've never cracked a book on?

Felhammer
2014-04-14, 05:59 PM
2nd edition was a big improvement on 1e adding a few more classes and adding the thacco system that I wish they would bring back. Cause who doesn't want to call head shots.

You don't need THAC0 to have called shots. The reason they were eliminated is because people abused them.



4th (From what I heard) Again simplified more to bring in the younger audience this system added many features as paragons(I hope i spelled that right) and powers.

It is not simplified, at least not any more than 3.5 was compared to 2nd edition. The base rules for combat and skills were merely a natural evolution from 3.0. Powers were introduced in 3.5 and Star Wars Saga Edition, the only difference is that everyone used the same basic structure for combat, which balanced the game.


My only issue with this system is really easy to break. If you can kill a dragon at a low level with a wizard its to simple. If you can lock a dragon with two barbarians and have the rest of the party beat it down its to simple.

You have not really played 4E then. Nor have you really played 3.x since spellcasters can easily lock down an appropriately challenging Dragon.




I'd like to see those numbers, specifically the ones from 3.5 to compare. I never said 4E wasn't successful, I know it brought a lot of revenue in, much more than anything else on the market at the time, but we simply don't know how successful 3.5 was to compare, nor do we know how expensive 4E was to support. The real interesting question would be to see if 4E replaced 3.5 for most or if it just complemented it.

We do not have all the facts but we do have bits and pieces.

We know D&D was a 25-30 million dollar brand back in the heyday of 3.5. We know right now that, even with virtually zero support, WotC is raking in at least 6 million a year from D&DI subscriptions. We also know that Pathfinder was the best selling RPG once WotC abandoned 4E and we also know that the whole of Paizo (not just Pathfinder) had a revenue of $11.2 million in 2012.

Lokiare
2014-04-15, 07:09 PM
You don't need THAC0 to have called shots. The reason they were eliminated is because people abused them.




It is not simplified, at least not any more than 3.5 was compared to 2nd edition. The base rules for combat and skills were merely a natural evolution from 3.0. Powers were introduced in 3.5 and Star Wars Saga Edition, the only difference is that everyone used the same basic structure for combat, which balanced the game.



You have not really played 4E then. Nor have you really played 3.x since spellcasters can easily lock down an appropriately challenging Dragon.



We do not have all the facts but we do have bits and pieces.

We know D&D was a 25-30 million dollar brand back in the heyday of 3.5. We know right now that, even with virtually zero support, WotC is raking in at least 6 million a year from D&DI subscriptions. We also know that Pathfinder was the best selling RPG once WotC abandoned 4E and we also know that the whole of Paizo (not just Pathfinder) had a revenue of $11.2 million in 2012.

I can't find it now, but one of the former developers working on 4E mentioned that during its first 2 years it made as much as 3E at its peak. Then there are the 4E books that made it on the best seller lists around that time. So yeah, 4E was humming along fine as successful as 3E, then WotC started making shady business decisions (what some would call false promises or outright lying to their customers) and people got fed up and those that didn't mind 3.5E went and played Pathfinder from a company that knew how to treat their customers and the 4E fans slowed down on buying books and canceled their DDi subscriptions when it turned out that WotC wasn't keeping its word about new software. Then they released Essentials and the remaining loyalists were divided some liked it, others didn't so they further reduced their sales to the point that 6 million in DDi memberships was not enough to keep going and word came down from Hasbro to make an 'evergreen' D&D like monopoly that would sit on store shelves forever, and thus we have 5E.

Bounty Hunter
2014-04-15, 09:54 PM
Also, I should point out that (according to WOTC's statistics) most campaigns never reach level 11.The only one that I've been in to reach level eleven started at level ten. :smallfrown:

Lokiare
2014-04-16, 02:57 AM
The only one that I've been in to reach level eleven started at level ten. :smallfrown:

I had my most recent 4E campaign reach level 16 starting from level 1. I put it on hiatus because 5E made me nostalgic for some old school modules. So I started another campaign where I converted the gold box ruins of adventure and started the party at level 1. I'll probably pick up the level 16 4E campaign after I finish the lower level one.

Envyus
2014-05-17, 12:48 PM
I can't find it now, but one of the former developers working on 4E mentioned that during its first 2 years it made as much as 3E at its peak. Then there are the 4E books that made it on the best seller lists around that time. So yeah, 4E was humming along fine as successful as 3E, then WotC started making shady business decisions (what some would call false promises or outright lying to their customers) and people got fed up and those that didn't mind 3.5E went and played Pathfinder from a company that knew how to treat their customers and the 4E fans slowed down on buying books and canceled their DDi subscriptions when it turned out that WotC wasn't keeping its word about new software. Then they released Essentials and the remaining loyalists were divided some liked it, others didn't so they further reduced their sales to the point that 6 million in DDi memberships was not enough to keep going and word came down from Hasbro to make an 'evergreen' D&D like monopoly that would sit on store shelves forever, and thus we have 5E.

Lots of people just liked 3.5 better then 4e as well. Also the online table top did not happen for a pretty tragic reason. The guy in charge of it died.

Stubbazubba
2014-05-17, 02:22 PM
Lots of people just liked 3.5 better then 4e as well. Also the online table top did not happen for a pretty tragic reason. The guy in charge of it died.

Not just died. It was like, murder-suicide, wasn't it?

nyjastul69
2014-05-17, 04:29 PM
Not just died. It was like, murder-suicide, wasn't it?

Yes. You can find some information on it here (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online).

Kurald Galain
2014-05-17, 07:45 PM
It strikes me that we actually have no idea how much money WOTC is making off DDI. Even aside from server costs and the fact that some of it is outsourced to a third party, nobody actually knows how many subscribers they have: WOTC isn't telling, and anything else is speculation.

It's quite possible that DDI is nowhere near as profitable as is suggested on forums.

Lokiare
2014-05-18, 02:12 AM
Yes. You can find some information on it here (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online).

Not to be callous, but from a business perspective that's all poor research and planning. They should have did their research and went with a major company like Atari whom they had a contract with, instead of with a no name company with one programmer. Not to mention it should have only delayed the release by a few months, instead of 2 years. In other words completely their fault.

Lokiare
2014-05-18, 02:14 AM
It strikes me that we actually have no idea how much money WOTC is making off DDI. Even aside from server costs and the fact that some of it is outsourced to a third party, nobody actually knows how many subscribers they have: WOTC isn't telling, and anything else is speculation.

It's quite possible that DDI is nowhere near as profitable as is suggested on forums.

Actually, if you are a subscriber they put you in the DDi group and took you out if your canceled. So at least up until the forum change over we knew pretty closely how many subscribers there were and it was raking in millions of dollars per month.

Envyus
2014-05-18, 03:25 AM
Not to be callous, but from a business perspective that's all poor research and planning. They should have did their research and went with a major company like Atari whom they had a contract with, instead of with a no name company with one programmer. Not to mention it should have only delayed the release by a few months, instead of 2 years. In other words completely their fault.

Sadly it was pretty Callous and they had no idea the guy would suddenly die.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-18, 03:28 AM
Actually, if you are a subscriber they put you in the DDi group and took you out if your canceled. So at least up until the forum change over we knew pretty closely how many subscribers there were and it was raking in millions of dollars per month.
Well, since you're talking from business perspective and all, you should know that is not even remotely a reliable source. Companies have every reason to hide sensitive data (like how many customers they have) from their competitors.

Lokiare
2014-05-19, 02:37 AM
Sadly it was pretty Callous and they had no idea the guy would suddenly die.

Its a well known thing in the software development world to not leave a project to just one person and to get several people involved in looking and working with the code so you don't have these kinds of problems. It really was just bad business practices that sank that boat, regardless of what happened. What if the guy had just quit and went to Alaska or something? WotC would have been in the exact same predicament. Sometimes you have to look past the emotion and look at the logic.


Well, since you're talking from business perspective and all, you should know that is not even remotely a reliable source. Companies have every reason to hide sensitive data (like how many customers they have) from their competitors.

Actually its a pretty reliable source, since WotC proved they have little or no business sense in other areas, why would they suddenly have good business sense in a very niche software area? Also what competitors? Until Pathfinder came along they didn't have any competitors and in the TTRPG software world I don't think they have any competitors to this day for things like character builders and monster creators.

archaeo
2014-05-19, 06:34 AM
I, too, think it's a little crass to criticize WotC based on something like this. But putting that aside,


Also what competitors? Until Pathfinder came along they didn't have any competitors and in the TTRPG software world I don't think they have any competitors to this day for things like character builders and monster creators.

Roll20.net may very well have the "virtual tabletop" market all sewn up, or certainly will by the time anybody else gets around to building this kind of software. If WotC/Hasbro really wanted to make a big play, they'd acquire Roll20.net outright and buy up some kind of app developer who could make some android/iOS tools.

Of course, we have every reason to believe that the company isn't looking to do that at all, but is instead way more focused on building the D&D brand by 1) making a new, simplified edition that a) offers relatively easy conversion for the huge stable of existing material and b) has an aggressively priced starter set, and 2) leveraging the brand in every possible way. I don't know if this will be a successful strategy, but it's worth pointing out that Hasbro's stock price is at record highs based on the strength of its ability to tie beloved "retro" brands into new and profitable products, esp. My Little Pony and Transformers.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-19, 07:03 AM
I, too, think it's a little crass to criticize WotC based on something like this.
It's not critizing WOTC at all: WOTC has never made any kind of public statement regarding the amount of DDI subscriptions they have, nor how much revenue they made from that. There simply aren't any facts about this in public knowledge. There is some speculation from fans of the game that they are making boatloads of money, but that's all it is: speculation. On the other hand, the fact that Paizo has been consistently outselling WOTC for several years now has been confirmed by multiple external sources; check Enworld if you want details.


a) offers relatively easy conversion for the huge stable of existing material and b) has an aggressively priced starter set,
It would be interesting to see how they handle (a). However, the news we have about the upcoming starter set doesn't show any aggressive pricing there; if anything, it seems rather expensive for a starter set.

Aside from that, assuming DDI really makes so much money, WOTC would be keen on having some kind of subscription model for 5E as well. I'm curious if WOTC has made any statements in that regard.

Envyus
2014-05-19, 01:53 PM
It's not critizing WOTC at all: WOTC has never made any kind of public statement regarding the amount of DDI subscriptions they have, nor how much revenue they made from that. There simply aren't any facts about this in public knowledge. There is some speculation from fans of the game that they are making boatloads of money, but that's all it is: speculation. On the other hand, the fact that Paizo has been consistently outselling WOTC for several years now has been confirmed by multiple external sources; check Enworld if you want details.

I think he was talking about the dude's death.

Lokiare
2014-05-19, 08:40 PM
I think he was talking about the dude's death.

Yeah, it was a tragic murder suicide (he murdered his ex-wife/girlfriend and then committed suicide). It was completely tragic and awful that this happened, however the world moves on. WotC should have been delayed a few months at most if they had chosen a company that would use multiple people on the project and had a backup plan in case someone bailed. Its all on WotC's shoulders because they chose some small start up instead of going with a known company like Atari, who would probably have done it for free for bragging rights.

Edit: This is a major problem with society now a days. People allow their emotions to override their ability to think and create disasters like this. What if this guy had worked for NASA running the international space station from the ground? Suddenly are we supposed to let the International space station go unmonitored for months and years while getting someone up to speed? Or should be plan ahead and have 2-3 people fully trained to take over in case something happens to the guy running the space station? Logic should be the decision maker and emotions should be the motivators, not the other way around.


It's not critizing WOTC at all: WOTC has never made any kind of public statement regarding the amount of DDI subscriptions they have, nor how much revenue they made from that. There simply aren't any facts about this in public knowledge. There is some speculation from fans of the game that they are making boatloads of money, but that's all it is: speculation. On the other hand, the fact that Paizo has been consistently outselling WOTC for several years now has been confirmed by multiple external sources; check Enworld if you want details.


It would be interesting to see how they handle (a). However, the news we have about the upcoming starter set doesn't show any aggressive pricing there; if anything, it seems rather expensive for a starter set.

Aside from that, assuming DDI really makes so much money, WOTC would be keen on having some kind of subscription model for 5E as well. I'm curious if WOTC has made any statements in that regard.

Yes, back when DDi was up and running around 1 year in a bunch of us forum goers tested the DDI group out by canceling and subscribing. We found that you get added to the group within 48 hours of subscribing and were removed from the group within 1 week of unsubscribing. The DDi numbers are pretty solid. It makes a mint every month and will continue to do so as long as people continue to play 4E.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-19, 09:50 PM
What if this guy had worked for NASA running the international space station from the ground? Suddenly are we supposed to let the International space station go unmonitored for months and years while getting someone up to speed? Or should be plan ahead and have 2-3 people fully trained to take over in case something happens to the guy running the space station? Logic should be the decision maker and emotions should be the motivators, not the other way around.

While I agree with you in principle, I think your overlooking two things here. First of all is the reality of maintaining such redundancies. It costs a lot of money. NASA and large projects might do it, but DDI isn't a large project. Not only does redundancy cost money, but it also requires additional time and resources to test and maintain on its own. And even with all of that, sometimes it doesn't work, which is why until you've tested your backups, you shouldn't think you have a backup.

Secondly, I think you're overlooking how difficult it is to have a software project of any significant size under deadlines that more than one or two people could know everything about. Too much of software development these days is about getting stuff out now, and documentation, testing, commenting, they all take time away from development and delay getting things done now. Don't get me wrong, this really needs to change, but the realities of budgets and schedules may not ever let it change.

As a final point, while NASA may have redundancies, I think you would be horrified to discover how many major projects and systems really do rely on a single person to keep the thing running. It's actually a major problem right now that IBM and some older big agencies (like nasa) are trying to figure out how to deal with. They have plenty of staff that know new tech and new software but no one knows how to program mainframes anymore. And the old guys who did are retiring. Arguably, within the next 10-15 years we're going to start seeing situations where an old system was maintained by one or two people and no one really knows how to maintain it anymore, and the consequences thereof. If you think waiting years for half of what was promised with DDI was bad, just wait until someone has to rewrite an entire rocket launching sequence in modern hardware because no one knows how to do it anymore. It's already kind of happened http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1337:_Hack

Lokiare
2014-05-20, 08:28 PM
While I agree with you in principle, I think your overlooking two things here. First of all is the reality of maintaining such redundancies. It costs a lot of money. NASA and large projects might do it, but DDI isn't a large project. Not only does redundancy cost money, but it also requires additional time and resources to test and maintain on its own. And even with all of that, sometimes it doesn't work, which is why until you've tested your backups, you shouldn't think you have a backup.

Secondly, I think you're overlooking how difficult it is to have a software project of any significant size under deadlines that more than one or two people could know everything about. Too much of software development these days is about getting stuff out now, and documentation, testing, commenting, they all take time away from development and delay getting things done now. Don't get me wrong, this really needs to change, but the realities of budgets and schedules may not ever let it change.

As a final point, while NASA may have redundancies, I think you would be horrified to discover how many major projects and systems really do rely on a single person to keep the thing running. It's actually a major problem right now that IBM and some older big agencies (like nasa) are trying to figure out how to deal with. They have plenty of staff that know new tech and new software but no one knows how to program mainframes anymore. And the old guys who did are retiring. Arguably, within the next 10-15 years we're going to start seeing situations where an old system was maintained by one or two people and no one really knows how to maintain it anymore, and the consequences thereof. If you think waiting years for half of what was promised with DDI was bad, just wait until someone has to rewrite an entire rocket launching sequence in modern hardware because no one knows how to do it anymore. It's already kind of happened http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1337:_Hack

I know a lot of what you are saying and the key is to go with a company with those redundancies like Atari, where they used to have 2+ people working an any given project. In fact they usually have a whole list of programmers working on any of their projects, just look at the credits of any of their video games.

I'm saying its WotC fault for going with a small company when they had access to a company with a contract to use their IP like Atari. If they didn't want to go with them, they could have at least did some research and required multiple people work on the project. It basically boils down to carelessness on WotC part.

Stray
2014-05-21, 05:48 AM
I know a lot of what you are saying and the key is to go with a company with those redundancies like Atari, where they used to have 2+ people working an any given project. In fact they usually have a whole list of programmers working on any of their projects, just look at the credits of any of their video games.

I'm saying its WotC fault for going with a small company when they had access to a company with a contract to use their IP like Atari. If they didn't want to go with them, they could have at least did some research and required multiple people work on the project. It basically boils down to carelessness on WotC part.

1. Atari is a publisher not a game or software development company.
2. Atari having D&D license doesn't make them WotC's performing monkeys, they have no obligation to create software for them
3. At that time Atari was facing serious financial difficulties (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/11/atari-posts-huge-losses-could-be-on-the-way-out/), so I doubt they would be willing to develop for as you said bragging rights:

Its all on WotC's shoulders because they chose some small start up instead of going with a known company like Atari, who would probably have done it for free for bragging rights.


4. Hasbro and Atari relationship wasn't the best, judging from how they were suing each other.
5. Even if that relationship was perfect, it would be easier to communicate between WotC and small local company than going WotC->Hasbro->Atari->whatever developer they would get to do the actual work
6. And finally, we don't know how big was the developer, or who it was even, because murder-suicide guy was Wizards employee responsible for coordinating software development for the company. So this whole discussion is moot, because it was WotC who were to small of a company to have redundant Senior Managers doing nothing but overseeing other guys work, in case he dies suddenly. It's just too easy passing judgment with benefits of hindsight.

Lokiare
2014-05-21, 06:34 AM
1. Atari is a publisher not a game or software development company.
2. Atari having D&D license doesn't make them WotC's performing monkeys, they have no obligation to create software for them
3. At that time Atari was facing serious financial difficulties (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/11/atari-posts-huge-losses-could-be-on-the-way-out/), so I doubt they would be willing to develop for as you said bragging rights:


4. Hasbro and Atari relationship wasn't the best, judging from how they were suing each other.
5. Even if that relationship was perfect, it would be easier to communicate between WotC and small local company than going WotC->Hasbro->Atari->whatever developer they would get to do the actual work
6. And finally, we don't know how big was the developer, or who it was even, because murder-suicide guy was Wizards employee responsible for coordinating software development for the company. So this whole discussion is moot, because it was WotC who were to small of a company to have redundant Senior Managers doing nothing but overseeing other guys work, in case he dies suddenly. It's just too easy passing judgment with benefits of hindsight.

You got your facts wrong. The guy wasn't working for WotC. He was working for a small company that WotC chose to do the job. I looked into it after I found out about it. Do some research. He was an ex Microsoft employee and the woman was still working for Microsoft.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 07:53 AM
You got your facts wrong. The guy wasn't working for WotC. He was working for a small company that WotC chose to do the job. I looked into it after I found out about it. Do some research. He was an ex Microsoft employee and the woman was still working for Microsoft.

Sorry, but it seems like you're the one with your facts wrong. From the article (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online) linked earlier in the thread:


Joseph Batten's LinkedIn profile (now defunct) listed him as Senior Manager, Digital Technology Projects for Wizards of the Coast since February 2008. Prior to that he was Senior Technical Producer for just three months, with responsibilities for supporting Gleemax.com, integrating Dungeons & Dragons Insider (DDI) with Gleemax, and overseeing the backend infrastructure that all of Wizards of the Coast multiplayer games run on.

Lokiare
2014-05-21, 11:17 AM
Sorry, but it seems like you're the one with your facts wrong. From the article (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online) linked earlier in the thread:

I saw another article that listed him as working for another software company during the events. One or the other is wrong.

However that's beside the point. Being inside the company is even worse. They have a bunch of former software developers working for them as TTRPG designers, they should have known better.