| Body |
AlchemicFox
Monsterkeeper
7/6/2010 10:10:47 PM
PostID: 363946
|
Wizards has changed Magic Missile in 4e to:
Effect: 2 + INT modifier force damage.
No more attack roll so it's "old school", but you also can't crit or do anything else fun with it.
Don't even get me started on Wizard powers changing from Daily to Encounter and even changing levels, or TONS of Cleric powers becoming Minor Actions...
You playtested this crap for like 4 years, now you decide to make changes? Are you going to reprint the books with this information? No? You're going to make us pay for a subscription to even be notified?
Screw you, Benny.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
This post last edited on 7/6/2010 10:17:11 PM 
|
LordOmega
Distinguished Socialite
7/7/2010 6:09:33 AM
PostID: 364090
|
lol... I haven't read about any changes. But I figure they would do that. They are using the same model they used for 3.0/3.5.
Get people playing 4E, then when enough time has passed, come out with 4.5 with some significant changes and force them to buy new books.
WotC abandoned the model they had for 2E that allowed that edition to exist for around a decade or two. Before 2015, WotC will have come out with a 5E that is as different from 4E as 4E was different from 3E.
One of the original Strengths of DnD was it sticking to its core. One of the reasons it lasted while so many other RPGs fell to the wayside.
I'm just wondering if WotC is killing DnD and in the near future no new official material will be released and only people playing old editions will remember.
"The god of death shall rise again but for now. I need some sleep... "
This post last edited on 7/7/2010 6:14:49 AM
|
Ratagar
Ninja
7/7/2010 6:51:47 AM
PostID: 364093
|
that last though has crossed my mind as well Omega... personally i wonder at times if some one could negotiate with WotC to allow them to start printing new 3.0/3.5 content, but thats just a flight of fancy... i've also noticed this disturbing trend (destroying their game for profit) in other game companies, most notably games workshop; they keep releasing new general rules but some of the armies havn't seen a new rule book in several editions.
You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death.
|
Krwyn
Courageous Warrior
7/7/2010 7:32:52 AM
PostID: 364101
|
If you want to keep up with 3.5 you can go with Pathfinder RPG from Paizo (former publisher of DUNGEON and DRAGONS). Even if you don't want to go with the slightly evoluted rules, you could use the advenures (especially Adventure Paths) and modules as they are compatible with 3.5. Their adventures are very good, I think.
|
cobaltvector
Dungeonkeeper
7/7/2010 7:52:52 AM
PostID: 364109
|
What I'm more concerned with is that RPGs are following the same trend as computer games in that larger and more elaborate "patches" are required to play the game.
There was a time when mistakes were to be avoided. When they were made publishers would pony up the cash to either make the need correction in future printings. Two examples: The Solo of Fortune supplement for Cyberpunk printed the corrections on the inside cover of the book once they caught them while Chessex printed out inserts for the 3rd edition Skyrealms of Jorune. These were both before the days of "on demand" publishing and so were extremely costly endeavors. Lately it seems like even simple proofreading has fallen by the wayside.
When you can simply post a correction on a website there is no need for in depth play-testing or for comprehensive error checking, in fact it's to the gaming company's advantage to not do either. After all, instead of it just costing money to fix, now mistakes provide more traffic to their website where they can pitch the next barely play-tested, poorly proofread book. A errata can actually create revenue.
I'm beginning to believe that some of the errors and "corrections" might just be done to generate web traffic.
BTW to further LordOmega's point, 3.5 was planned and in the works even before 3rd had gone to print. Monte Cook said as much on his website - although this was only after 3.5 was out and he had left Wizards.
-- Nothing easy is ever simple.
This post last edited on 7/7/2010 8:04:04 AM
|
Sciurine
Eager Beaver
7/7/2010 8:24:24 AM
PostID: 364120
|
I will say, to be fair to Wizards, that they (I have to say claim, because I haven't had a chance to test them myself yet) claim that this is just different, not rebalancing. So really, it's an option, You can choose to learn Magic Missile A or Magic Missile B, whichever suits your fancy.
(Edit Note: I've only read the editorial and skimmed the errata, so I may not have seen exactly what you are reacting to)
This post last edited on 7/7/2010 8:33:10 AM
|
AlchemicFox
Monsterkeeper
7/7/2010 9:21:58 AM
PostID: 364133
|
My other major concern with this was they had to print errata because SEVERAL tables in the DMG were wrong, so they said "Get the DM's Screen, it'll have everything correct." And, well, they reprinted the same wrong tables AGAIN. "Here's the correct table, available for download, please paste it into your book."
Now with MM3 out, they've decided, "Hey. You know all of those tables we spent so many years balancing to make sure this edition is, well, balanced? And all the errata we had to make up to fix it? Screw you, we have a new damage calculation table and we're going to use that one now."
In the new update there's even an errata showing that the EXAMPLE they used for a previous errata was incorrect (the mechanics themselves were OK). THEY ERRATA-ED THEIR OWN ERRATA.
Some cleric powers have moved from standard to minor actions “to better reflect the game’s action economy,” if this 'economy' was so important to begin with, why wasn't this addressed TO BEGIN WITH?
In some instances, yes, the errata is necessary to prevent something from stacking, or giving a character unlimited actions or healing but this all reminds me too much of Magic: the Gathering and why I stopped playing that: I can quote 5 different versions of the Fog spell and have seen people throw shit at each other because they can't agree on how it should be played. The new 4E books have errata available before they even hit the shelves, much like how several cards from several sets become BANNED within the first week of play, because the people who get PAID TO PLAYTEST didn't come up with one single combination.
They're kind of saying "THE GAME IS BROKEN BECAUSE YOU ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX WE WORK IN. HOW DARE YOU CULTIVATE ORIGINALLITY."
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
|
BobTHJ
Owner of the Market
7/8/2010 1:15:16 PM
PostID: 364595
|
In some instances, yes, the errata is necessary to prevent something from stacking, or giving a character unlimited actions or healing but this all reminds me too much of Magic: the Gathering and why I stopped playing that: I can quote 5 different versions of the Fog spell and have seen people throw shit at each other because they can't agree on how it should be played. The new 4E books have errata available before they even hit the shelves, much like how several cards from several sets become BANNED within the first week of play, because the people who get PAID TO PLAYTEST didn't come up with one single combination.
As an aside - they fixed these issues for the most part with MTG. It's been 5+ years since a card had to be banned (and several years without banning before that), and the rules have been significantly streamlined to eliminate disputes as to how cards are played (it's all pretty straightforward now - probably 1 game in 100 where it's not real clear how two different cards interact).
Of course, MTG as a card game is a good candidate for this streamlining. It seems that's what they have tried to do with 4e as well, but I'm not sure the free-form nature of RPGs mixes well with rules streamlining - and even if it did I'm not sure if WOTC executed it well.
|
sammichweasel
Czar
7/13/2010 8:15:51 PM
PostID: 366009
|
Yeah, I dunno, I don't see a real issue with it. I like my subscription because it keeps just a truckload of content coming my way that I would have never even bothered to pick up without it - content that I generally like.
That, and I don't really care what they shift/fix/change - I run my games so loose that the only thing that really matters is how creative my players are, and whether we can agree on a number of actions.
But anyway, I have the disposable income for the subscription, so I suppose my opinion on the matter is a little skewed. I get all those free updates, don't really use the books, and roll with the electronic versions of things. As long as nothing core changes, it doesn't really impact me in any serious way.
|
Isonaroc
Courageous Warrior
7/15/2010 10:27:41 PM
PostID: 366368
|
And that's all well and good, but there are players who will get tripped up by these rule changes (and will throw a shit-fit about it). Honestly, while it's not the end of the world, it is a big middle finger to the players. As mentioned above, that's also why I don't buy PC games anymore, because the quality control is ass. It's all about pushing the product out the door as quickly as possible. Are there issues with it? No problem, we'll release a patch (or errata) to fix 'em. Wait, did our quick-fix screw something else up? No problem, we'll just release more errata. And so on...
"The following tale is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
|
LordOmega
Distinguished Socialite
7/15/2010 10:40:04 PM
PostID: 366373
|
Yeah. I agree with the PC games. I don't buy a game for the PC if the option to buy it on one of the game consoles is available.
I remember being able to buy a game for my old commodore 64 computer and not have to worry about any major bugs in the programming. And some of those games were really complex and long, not to mention the computer languages they used back then are not as user friendly as the ones used today. Of course, back then content was more important than graphics. Not like today.
"Trouble with you Elven girls is that your desire to do it is in inverse proportion to your willingness to talk about it."
|
cobaltvector
Dungeonkeeper
7/16/2010 8:17:12 PM
PostID: 366474
|
Yeah. I agree with the PC games. I don't buy a game for the PC if the option to buy it on one of the game consoles is available.
Don't worry. Now that most consoles are designed for "live" access there will be a flurry of patches for those games as well.
-- Nothing easy is ever simple.
|
LordOmega
Distinguished Socialite
7/16/2010 9:02:20 PM
PostID: 366476
|
Yeah. That is want I'm afraid of. The quality of games are going to get even lower now, with most consoles being 'live'.
What I find annoying now too, is with consoles going 'live' some things like the new PSP Go, doesn't even use UMDs anymore. You have to download games. I don't like that. I want the actual disc or other physical representation of the game.
"Trouble with you Elven girls is that your desire to do it is in inverse proportion to your willingness to talk about it."
|
| page of 1 pages containing 13 items.Items per page: |