Does Wizards of the Coast deserve our business?

[Ranger REG]

With all due respect, I don't really care for which is the better system for RPG out there. I may be an RPG enthusiast but not an aficionado. All I care about is how playable it can be for my style of gameplay.

I have tried other games and played those well, but I still return to my first love.

What Wizards did to the new incarnation of D&D in my opinion is more playable, especially when they added Rule 0. Even though there is the unwritten rule that DM is always right, it's there in black and white for all to see. They took AD&D and smooth out the multiclassing system (removing the ridiculous multiclass combination limit for each races and the dual-class mechanics for humans only). They make it easier to apply modifier by reversing AC improvement progression from going down to going up.

AFAIC, the former TSR game designers headed by Jonathan Tweet made great improvement to the game by removing the ability-heavy nonweapon proficiency system to a skill system that allow improvement by experience rather than rely heavily on associated ability score. I have to credit Wizards for keeping the former game designers on the payroll during the initial development of 3e.

What's more, they approach the new game rules in the mindset of a rules lawyer. Granted, there are still room for improvement, but when you troubleshoot the rules, you need to be very strict to avoid a lot of ambiguity and loopholes. If you cannot be this fussy and meticulous then you have no business designing game rules in the first place.

 

[Datt]

Chris I have to disagree with you on one point. 3E was not poorly play-tested. As a play tester I can account to that. My group and I spent many a weekend just trying to figure everything out. The "manual" we got was a 3" three ring binder completely filled. We tried to have it copied as to save time from printing it out of the .pdf file they sent us. Kinko's told us it would cost about $35 per copy! And if you think the finished product has holes. My word. You could go between page 35 and 350 and find two different rules about the same thing. It was pitiful.

So if you are going to bash a product bash it in the form that you know it, not the one you don't have a clue about.

 

[cblackthorne]

Datt,

My apologies to you if you got the wrong idea. Im not trying to bash the playtesters. I know a few people that were involved in the playtesting. But the final product that WOTC delivered still has alot of holes.

I really am a big fan of Dungeons & Dragons. Ive written articles for the Dragon and even sold a module to TSR, so I think I can speak as a "devoted follower."

Personally, I think the more exact you write the rules, the more problems you cause if you leave something out or accidently write a conflicting rule. Look at Star Fleet Battles for example. In many cases, they didn't give enough examples of what their intentions were with certain rules (i.e. magic bonus/effects stacking). I think thats pretty evident with the size of the FAQ document WOTC posts on the web site. At last count its over 80+ pages long. Thats a book in itself.

AD&D 2nd Edition was free formed for a reason, so that it was mostly up to the group or the DM to be the "final word" and not a page somewhere in the book.

You are correct, they did alot of things right with 3rd Edition, but I still dont like the way they wrote the combat rules (AoO, facing, flanking, etc.) and feats. I wished they would have done something better.

This whole mess with E-tools was the gold piece that broke the dragon's back. I bought the first copy that arrived in my area. I spents dozens of hours mofying the charts and databases to get it to work and it still doesn't figure things correctly.

Considering the amount of money I have spent on 3rd Edition, I deserve to have a better all around product than what is there.

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, I like some of the improvements to the combat rules. No facing allows me not to worry about keeping separate AC values for rear or flank attacks. AoO allow me to hit someone who dares to move past me (although poorly worded in D&D 3e they got it right with later Wizards' core rulebook products such as Wheel of Time and Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook).

As for writing the rules, one does not have to write with so much bulk as Star Fleet Battles. One only has to write it in a concise yet easy-to-read format. If it is not mentioned, then you simply can't do it. For example, a lot of people that are using the Monkey Grip feat (which allows them to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand) jump to the conclusion that they can use it to wield a weapon two sizes larger with both hands.

OTOH, the Player's Handbook did not mentioned that saving throws do not use the "natural 1/20 = autofailure/autosuccess" rule. All other Wizards' d20 core rulebooks made it known that but not D&D.

As for your investment of 3e, I invested in D&D since the 1980 boxed sets and than 1st edition, 2nd edition, and so on. And with each new edition it seems to get better and better, and they're becoming for forthright with the mistakes while then-TSR usually and vehemently deny there are errors in the 1st edition. The difference between 3e and previous edition is that they created an underlying rules engine that can be used for other types of games. So some of the improvements includes using a new (albeit not original) rule mechanics, like the Skill System that replaces the nonweapon proficiency system. Don't tell me you find the Skill System to be a mistake to replace the Nonweapon Proficiency system.

 

[cblackthorne]

Range REG,

I appreciate your point of view. You have been playing about as long as I have and Im sure you have played as many systems as well, so I really respect your opinion.

I only dislike the new combat rules and feats. I liked the new spells, and the character development.

I liked it when they started the NWP skills in in 2nd Edition and then expanded on them in 3rd Edition with the skills. I think they realized the value of skills making a character more three dimensional. Part of that might be the fact that some of the developers for 3rd Edition worked previously for other game companies whose systems were more skill based.

I dont like the feat system. I think its way too much to keep track of in character development and modifications. It also reminds me too much of Magic The Gathering, and I really dislike that game.

The combat system is no longer straightforward and where they came up with some of the rules is an enigma. Here is an example. Im using a longspear (10 ft reach) and you run by me. According to what is written in the rules I can't hit you with an attack of opportunity.

Ive been fighting heavy weapons in the SCA for 16 years and I can tell you for a fact that if you try to run by me I can still hit you with the shaft of the spear (as if it was a club or staff).

My point is, if you are going to write a rule like AoO, you better think it through before you publish it or don't bother.

Same thing goes for an ambush attack. If an NPC is walking town an alley totally unaware that an attack is coming, a character gets no bonus for attacking from behind. Yes, they do not get a dexterity bonus, but thats just it. The dex is a BONUS not standard. An average person has no dex bonus to start with so a level 20 fighter isnt going to have any kind of upper hand by attacking someone unaware? Thats completely wrong.

The point is really moot. Our group has already voted and decided to change systems. I will continue to use DnD for source material and hope that some of the problems get fixed. Possibly I need to look into some of the other campaign books, maybe they filled in the holes left by WOTC.

Chris

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I dont like the feat system. I think its way too much to keep track of in character development and modifications. It also reminds me too much of Magic The Gathering, and I really dislike that game.

Okay, I'll bite - other than the fact that they both come from WoTC, what on earth do feats and M:tG have to do with one another? I really hate apples, but it's not because they remind me of oranges.

The combat system is no longer straightforward and where they came up with some of the rules is an enigma. Here is an example. Im using a longspear (10 ft reach) and you run by me. According to what is written in the rules I can't hit you with an attack of opportunity.

Yes you do. You get an attack of opportunity when they move within your threatened area, i.e. from a space 10 feet away to a space 5 feet away.

Ive been fighting heavy weapons in the SCA for 16 years and I can tell you for a fact that if you try to run by me I can still hit you with the shaft of the spear (as if it was a club or staff).

Why bother doing that when you've got the nice sharp pointy end which does a lot more damage?

Same thing goes for an ambush attack. If an NPC is walking town an alley totally unaware that an attack is coming, a character gets no bonus for attacking from behind. Yes, they do not get a dexterity bonus, but thats just it. The dex is a BONUS not standard. An average person has no dex bonus to start with so a level 20 fighter isnt going to have any kind of upper hand by attacking someone unaware? Thats completely wrong.

Well, you do get a whole round to beat on them before they can react. And if it's really that big of a deal, just give a +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll. I don't see this as a major issue.

The point is really moot.

Agreed, but arguing over moot points is what makes the internet so fun.

 

[Henry]

Not to be a buzz-kill, but this topic wandering so far off of "software" as to be in "general RPG discussion." In the interest of staying on the original topic posted by theoremtank, I would humbly suggest that a thread could be started over on the "General RPG Discussion" forum on this subject.

With regards to wizards treatment of their customer base over E-Tools, I will be one of the first to say I was disappointed about how far the realization of E-tools fell from its promise, back in the heady days of 2000 when the very first features drafts were discussed back on Eric's Boards. I always accept that some features will fall by the wayside when realization of a goal is made, but due to bad choices, reorganization of Wizards software division, and altered budgets, the project went from a full-featured Dm & player's toolkit for the tabletop, to a character creator and table generator.

HOWEVER, I cannot say that the program was a failure. I have to disagree with anyone who says such. It still runs optimally compared to many software packages in the market, free and not.

Does wizards deserve my business? Yes. They are taking the results of a bad decision made by others, a project that was effectively mothballed according to Eric (formerly) of Fluid, and they managed to keep the results of thousands of man-hours and thousands of expectations from being swept under the rug.

The alternative to a reduced e-tools was NO e-tools at all. EVER. You must answer which you would rather have.