Search results

coding and game design require different competencies. I see one. maybe the design team is working on something else (starts with a 5...) :angel:

yes. and the main reason I don't like 4e is that it made every single class vancian-ish. essentials changed this a bit for a couple of martial builds but there is still no real spontaneous caster. I love 3.5 psionics mechanically. their flavor, not so much. the effects aren't always identical...

I think you are missing what "the simulationist crowd" means by "simulation".

the problem with this poll is its wording. even I who likes some aspects of 4e but want the next edition to bring back some, but not all, elements of 3e (which essentials already does to some degree) couldn't answer the poll because it all depends on the specifics. but yes, Aberzanzorax's poll...

I think that’s more or less what they did with 4e. in-house playtesters were all about how cool the game was going to be. I don't think the result is as appealing as it could have been with better market research, though. ah, there's a couple of things to be said about that but considering the...

considering the state of ddi (anemic magazines, buggy CB) and wotc's past experience with digital features, it would be very imprudent for them to go that route just now. I think they're only recycling the content of these books as a quick patch to prevent subscribers from canceling en masse...

I think it'll be tough for the d&d department to survive without the book sales considering the growing number of subscribers disappointed by their digital intiative... but hopefully they'll be able to do it. :)

making some races and classes unavailable at launch didn't help conversion either, particularly classes like the druid that had been in the core books for 30 years. this is also true for some iconic monsters. but conversion is just one factor that may have helped widen the rift. I think the key...

yes, the marketing certainly didn't help. rivalry explains edition wars, it's not what makes people pick a side in the first place (ie like or dislike a new edition). the stated goal of PF was backwards compatibility, that's not the point of a new edition. oh yeah, resistance to change. I hear...

before 4e, the vast majority of dnd players I knew online or IRL played the latest edition. sometimes it took them a year or so to switch but I don't see this happening now. I think a 4e that fixed 3e issues without drastically changing the design philosophy could have appealed to current 4e...

not my thing using mana instead of vancian magic... sure. using mtg colours as magic schools/types... why not. using magic cards as spells... bzzzt! there are already enough rpgs with gamist powers as it is.

yeah, with their paranoia about piracy that actually made them pull the pdf versions of printed books (even those that were already online) and their track record with digital initiatives, I see that going very well. somehow, I doubt many subscribers will buy the version of the "digital sea"...

good question. I don't play 4e but I like the essential design and I was waiting to see if the multiclassing rules introduced enough flexibility to start an all-essential campaign. now I'm glad i waited to buy the books.

"German"? they don't say that in America. YouTube - Justin Bieber doesn't know what German is? sorry for continuing the off-topic. so... is wotc selling d&d?

this. but that's cheating. if I have to pick one it would be 3e's unified level progression, which made multiclassing and customisation easier.

wfrp2 (won't touch wfrp3), Savage Worlds, Fantasy Craft or some other fantasy D20 if allowed.

which monsters get new art?

but that's not the reason wotc gave, is it? so...? many other hobbies (notably rpgs) are even cheaper or provide better value for money (like, say... the old CB). talk about irrelevance...

um, I don't know how to say this to you... something horrible happened...

any word on multiclassing? I know it has been announced for february, but still...