No. they utilized 3rd parties in two ways
1. Have 3rd parties create products for DND
2. Have 3rd parties create new d20 games that keep others from going outside d20 which is not the same as making DND supplements.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars
- Thread starter roguerouge
- Start date
No. they utilized 3rd parties in two ways
1. Have 3rd parties create products for DND
2. Have 3rd parties create new d20 games that keep others from going outside d20 which is not the same as making DND supplements.
Were there any particular Design and Development articles, which were very egregious in this manner?
It should still be on WOTC's own website (of course, finding things there is a pain and a half)...
Still, I think most of the "insults" WOTC launched against 3.5 were similar to Paizo's preview of the bard (PF preview flat out says, "the 3.5 bard sucks").
Basically, if you didn't agree with the reasoning, you would take it as the most negative light possible...
EDIT: The one thing I always wonder about is the "shared space" concept of the OGL. Exactly how does this work in practice?
Last edited:
Dude- the things you excised from 4Ed to rebrand 3.X/Pathfinder are some of the things the pro-4Ed crowd love the most.
It simply wouldn't work. To quote Chef "Pig and Elephant DNA just won't splice."
As for games ruined by their D20 incarnations, let me offer a counterpoint.
I'll agree that few if any games ported into D20 were better or even as good as their original versions.
However, the gains included:
1) More gamers exposed to the fluff, which inherently increases the value of the underlying IP. So many more d20 players exist than for most of those games in their original forms- and after a taste for the fluff, at least some portion will find their way back to the originals.
Its the same thing that happened when so many games had GURPS versions made of them.
2) Introduction of new concepts, gear, feats and mechanics into D20, increasing the value of its underlying IP.
From a casual read of the 2007 and early-2008 Design and Development articles on wizard's website, I'll have to agree that the level of "anti-3.5E" bias is somewhat subjective.
If I had read such articles 20+ years ago, I probably would have perceived them to be saying "1E AD&D sucks!".
I have no idea what most 4E D&D players are really into, which may be absent from previous editions.
So far I've only DM'd 4E with an additional duty of playing an NPC wizard in my present game, since none of the other players were interested in playing a wizard or any other controller type character. Other than the at-will combat spells, the wizard doesn't seem to be that drastically different from previous editions, besides having less spells. I haven't really played the other classes that extensively.
Are there some 4E fans who are fascinated by the character powers being more powerful, than the simple use of a sword or bow & arrow in the combat of previous editions?
Intense_Interest
First Post
Mechanically?
Non-Str-Con-Dex-Int-Wis-Cha stat systems
Non-Class dependent systems
Non-"Level up" based systems
Systems that don't require you to build encounters around getting fly at 5th level
Non-Vancian magic systems
Systems that use Dodge/Damage reduction combat mechanics rather than ablative hit points
Systems that do not want the AD&D alignment system built in
Systems that do not use the 4-encounter-day assumption
Systems that scale well and intuitively towards vehicular combat
Systems that want to include wide-ranging / interjected subsystems such as "corruption", "faction" or "faith"
Yes, those funny people that want to do more than wait for the wizard to run the adventure for them.
Amphimir Míriel
Explorer
ggroy, let me give you a small list of what we 4E fans are into, which may be absent from previous editions:
1.- Class and Race balance (the Wizard does not overpower the Fighter, at any level)
2.- The At-Will/Encounter/Daily power mechanics allow everybody to have interesting things to do on each round, not just the spellcasters.
3.- DMs can make NPCs and Monsters with any abilities demanded by the story, not with those demanded by the character creation rules.
4.- Class and Race balance (the Bard is a useful character to have, not the comic relief)
5.- Healing Surge mechanics model the "action movie" paradigm and eliminate the need for someone to play a "healbot" character or for the party to carry tons of potions or wands
6.- Level based encounter creation rules allow DMs to create interesting combat encounters quickly (useful for those times when the players go somewhere not originally intended)
7.- Class and Race balance (no CoDzilla and the Paladin is still interesting at level 10)
8.- DMG Page 42 allows DMs to "say yes" to stunts and manoeuvres, above and beyond what's on the players list of powers
9.- Movement is a much bigger part of combat now and shifting, running, pushing, pulling and sliding are all more interesting than just standing there and stabbing the bad guy.
10.- Did I mention Class and Race balance?
These are some of the reasons why some of us find the idea of "Pathfinder as 5E" as a very bad step backwards.
Last edited:
I agree that the DM stuff in 4E is a lot more simplified and easier to manage.
I usually test out my encounters by playing "solo D&D" with the player characters (ie. guessing what I think the characters may possibly do), to check whether the encounters are too hard or too easy. 4E makes it relatively easy to do this, compared to 3E/3.5E.
I usually test out my encounters by playing "solo D&D" with the player characters (ie. guessing what I think the characters may possibly do), to check whether the encounters are too hard or too easy. 4E makes it relatively easy to do this, compared to 3E/3.5E.
There you go again. More ad-hominem attacks.
*sigh*
I'm done with this part of this thread.
Similar Threads
