Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[FreeTheSlaves]

But not in the basic Core rulebook.
When 4e was being playtested, WotC used a name for one of the wizards types of implement users was named and people roared about it.

Yep, and there was no request for feedback when they were planning the open-aligned 4E Paladin. If they had done so sure there would have been plenty of roar, but dialing out the real concern from the noise could have led to a better class than what was initially released.

Thankfully Wizards is now all for the open play-test. People may not get everything they want but at least there's a visible and popular reason why not.

 

[GM Dave]

But not in the basic Core rulebook.
When 4e was being playtested, WotC used a name for one of the wizards types of implement users was named and people roared about it.

People roar about anything WotC produces, says, or does.

This is the internet and we would roar if WotC suggested the M-U should use d6 for hit points.

People would roar if Forgotten Realms was announced as the new 'core' setting for DnD and they'd roar if Forgotten Realms wasn't announced as the new 'core' setting.

Why do you think even the most basic polls from WotC now have Option A, Option B, and Option 'I will tell you what I want'.

Personally, I was pretty surprised that there would be any complaint on the idea of colorful details in the core book related to Wizards.

There has to have been over a hundred different mage guilds that WotC and TSR have produced in products and magazines and ezines over the 30 years of the game. Most of the prestige wizard classes had fluff text that mentioned magical orders and many campaign and splat books are filled with descriptions of magical orders.

The only real problem with guilds and orders for mages and sorcerers is really deciding which ones your players are going to include in some sort of back history or background.

The same really goes for Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Rogues/Thieves/Assassins, Scouts, Knights, Cavaliers, and pretty much any class in the game. The material is there to be used.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yep, and there was no request for feedback when they were planning the open-aligned 4E Paladin. If they had done so sure there would have been plenty of roar, but dialing out the real concern from the noise could have led to a better class than what was initially released.

Thankfully Wizards is now all for the open play-test. People may not get everything they want but at least there's a visible and popular reason why not.

Yes, but as any company knows, there's a limit to how much you can listen to your fans. Your noisiest fans are usually the least of your concerns. They make up the smallest percentage of players, the smallest percentage of buyers and are often in that "hardcore" niche that no amount of pandering to them will ever make them happy. They are at best "fairweather friends".

Being open about what they're doing isn't necessarily to get feedback on what they SHOULD do, it's also to get feedback on how well what they WANT to do plays out. Players need to understand the difference. Complaining that non-LG paladins, or that paladins are LG only probably won't change. Telling Wizards that the math for a certain ability or class isn't working is the kind of feedback they're really going to be looking for.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Yes, but as any company knows, there's a limit to how much you can listen to your fans. Your noisiest fans are usually the least of your concerns. They make up the smallest percentage of players, the smallest percentage of buyers and are often in that "hardcore" niche that no amount of pandering to them will ever make them happy. They are at best "fairweather friends".

Being open about what they're doing isn't necessarily to get feedback on what they SHOULD do, it's also to get feedback on how well what they WANT to do plays out. Players need to understand the difference. Complaining that non-LG paladins, or that paladins are LG only probably won't change. Telling Wizards that the math for a certain ability or class isn't working is the kind of feedback they're really going to be looking for.

Oh for sure there is a limit to how much you should listen. Simply open listening is no good, it's got to be solicited feedback over specific points.

Most of my gaming friends don't even lurk on any D&D web-sites, but they play and they spend - more than me. So in my gaming group I'm the tip of the ice-berg and my opinions differ markedly their tastes. Website vocalization ain't a substitute for real work market research.

What got me last time was the almost total lack of public feedback. At the time it didn't worry me a whit, but after a while I started to think soliciting public feedback would have been a better move.

Oh I don't know about the paladin story issue being not of significant interest to WotC. Now that the initial hiss & roar (myself guilty ) has been released, the designers may well (hopefully) think to themselves that there is a need to accommodate the exclusionist proponents with the inclusivists in an acceptable framework. This may well be important to help them define the Cleric from the Paladin and vice versa. Put another way, flavour and story can matter.

 

[triqui]

People roar about anything WotC produces, says, or does.

This is the internet and we would roar if WotC suggested the M-U should use d6 for hit points.

People would roar if Forgotten Realms was announced as the new 'core' setting for DnD and they'd roar if Forgotten Realms wasn't announced as the new 'core' setting.

Why do you think even the most basic polls from WotC now have Option A, Option B, and Option 'I will tell you what I want'.

Personally, I was pretty surprised that there would be any complaint on the idea of colorful details in the core book related to Wizards.

There has to have been over a hundred different mage guilds that WotC and TSR have produced in products and magazines and ezines over the 30 years of the game. Most of the prestige wizard classes had fluff text that mentioned magical orders and many campaign and splat books are filled with descriptions of magical orders.

The only real problem with guilds and orders for mages and sorcerers is really deciding which ones your players are going to include in some sort of back history or background.

The same really goes for Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Rogues/Thieves/Assassins, Scouts, Knights, Cavaliers, and pretty much any class in the game. The material is there to be used.

You don't need to convince me, I also think that way. But my point stands valid: Paizo does not have such constraints. Whatever is the reason people roar about fluff decisions in WotC, it's not true about Paizo.

WotC is quite hesitant to put fluff on basic core mechanics. If they call the healing ability of the paladin "The Touch of St Macharious" instead of Lay on Hands, people will smash them, because there is no St Macharious in [insert here a random D&D world] and WotC is not being faithful to the history of the game and Gigax's legacy. Paizo can put a nation of barbarians who fight *robots* without fear of reprisal. Real robots. WOTC was critizised because they introduced warforged (magical warforged) into Forgotten.

WotC can't put a Gunslinger class in a core book, even if they would want (which maybe they don`t). In a speciffic setting? Maybe. A core book? Something that is core to FR or GH or Dragonlance? No way.

 

[GM Dave]

You don't need to convince me, I also think that way. But my point stands valid: Paizo does not have such constraints. Whatever is the reason people roar about fluff decisions in WotC, it's not true about Paizo.

WotC is quite hesitant to put fluff on basic core mechanics. If they call the healing ability of the paladin "The Touch of St Macharious" instead of Lay on Hands, people will smash them, because there is no St Macharious in [insert here a random D&D world] and WotC is not being faithful to the history of the game and Gigax's legacy. Paizo can put a nation of barbarians who fight *robots* without fear of reprisal. Real robots. WOTC was critizised because they introduced warforged (magical warforged) into Forgotten.

WotC can't put a Gunslinger class in a core book, even if they would want (which maybe they don`t). In a speciffic setting? Maybe. A core book? Something that is core to FR or GH or Dragonlance? No way.

Which I find funny, again, as Smoke Powder has been in Forgotten Realms as long as the Spell Jammer setting if not earlier. The 1st ed DnD DMG has rules on Six Shooters and Sorcery. The 2nd ed rules has several alternative time frame campaign books (The Green Set like A Mighty Fortress) that cover periods of Rennaisance and Age of Sail with rules for gun powder in DnD.

I've several times had players playing their Hippo Humanoids and wielding Smoke Powder guns as Rogues or Fighters over the years.

The whole Blackmoor campaign featured 'Advanced Civilization' verses Magical Players.

DnD has had many cases of clockwork monsters included in its materials from Monster Manuels to Dragon and Dungeon articles.

Currently, my group doesn't even bat an eyeball when a player suggests playing a war-forged and was one of the more popular adoptions out of the Ebberon campaign to our later gaming.

Personally, I have a few criticisms of the FR that I would level in concern before bringing up war-forged and whether they had design space in that game (Kender and Tinker Gnomes are certainly more of a concern to me race wise and quite a few other things).

Personally, if they dropped Barbarian class and re-named it Berserker Class and then had 'Wilderness', 'Primitive', and 'Horse Lord' as Themes that could be applied to the Berserker class then I'd not bat an eye.

I'd point out that the Berserker was in Dragon magazines and being played by players like Gronards like me long before the first Barbarian Class was published (this is why Berserker is in Hackmaster 4e).

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would like (I know I will catch mass flack for this one) is a return to the specialised Lawful Good Cleric (warrior) type, more martially bent than the Cleric.

They have mentioned complex classes (Assassin) and simpler classes.