Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="broghammerj" data-source="post: 3763741" data-attributes="member: 1869">Mike Mearls: This edition goes to four. Look, right across the book, four, four, four and...Bruce Cordell: Oh, I see. And most editions go up to 3.5?Mike Mearls: Exactly.Bruce Cordell: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?Mike Mearls: Well, it's a half better, isn't it? It's not 3.5. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at 3.5. You're on four here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 3.5 on your DMG. Where can you go from there? Where?Bruce Cordell: I don't know.Mike Mearls: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?Bruce Cordell: Put it up to four.Mike Mearls: Four. Exactly. One better.Bruce Cordell: Why don't you just make 3.5 better and make 3.5 be the top number and make that a little better?[Pause.]Mike Mearls: These go to four.All kidding aside with my homage to Spinal Tap, I get the odd sense that 4E an do everything for me.  It will cure disease, stop world hunger, and bring peace to planet Earth.  This marketing ploy may work, if as a consumer I got the sense that 4E was backed up by a solid system.   How would I know it's a solid system?  There would be substantial playtesting well in advance of the release.  The previews would be full of concrete information.What are we getting as consumers....a bunch of by the seat of our pants story hours. These  "previews" tell me that my fighter gets a kerplow attack and my wizards can strike with his whizbang.  Can anyone tell me what the kerplow or whizbang attack is?  The answer is likely no because neither does WOTC.  My uncle would refer to the talking out of your #*^$*!  I wonder if they're wouldn't be so much 4E questioning if WOTC didn't come out and say what the perceived problems were with 3.5 and how they fixed them.1, We think multiclassing spellcasters was a problem...therefore we used character level to determine caster strength.2. We think gnomes are a infrequently played race, therefore we removed them from the PHB3. The bard is an unpopular class therefore we have eliminated him from the core rules.4. The power level of characters was unbalanced therefore we lowered the wizard's number of massive damage spells per day and replaced it with a reusable standard attack.  To equalize the fighter we have given them special maneuvers that will provide similar damage to the wizards massive attack.I could go on and on.  Critics to my post will say that they can't release information or their competitors steal their ideas.  What just like S&S released a pathetic error filled monster manual for 3E?  That bold sales plan nearly crippled WOTC and caused us to all play games by WW.  Or how about he fact that some people will steal the rules from the previews and just use it for their homebrew without buying core books?  Those are the same people who will just do that with the SRD when it's released and I would argue a very small faction.If I were looking a previews for a car I would want to know it comes with a 2.5L V-6, not that it drives "ultrafast".Sorry for the rant but I am tired of being sold the "Wonder" in Wonder Bread when all I want to do is make a sandwich.</blockquote>

Verification