Dragon 397: Letters To The Editor Up

[The Halfling]

I think if it was released now, they'd likely have made Runepriest a build for clerics (bsaically replacing the also-not supported Str. Cleric), and Seeker a Ranger Build (which they essentially did with Hunter). Psionics... yeah not sure about them.

I can see that given that Essentials seems to be trying to winnow down the total number of "base" classes, and upping the number of sub-classes, like 2E did in a way.

Given the fluff of the class though, I wish that the runepriest was a leader build for the invoker rather than the cleric. A cloth wearing leader would be something currently not in the game, and wouldn't step on the cleric toes.

The Seeker I definately agree is the Hunter with Primal as the primary and Martial as the secondary.

 

[jbear]

I think if it was released now, they'd likely have made Runepriest a build for clerics (bsaically replacing the also-not supported Str. Cleric), and Seeker a Ranger Build (which they essentially did with Hunter). Psionics... yeah not sure about them.

Hey that sounds like a great idea for a pitch!

Ok, so they asked for constructive suggestions ... that, my friend is a constructive suggestion!

They asked for new ways of using stuff already in the game. Seems to go along those lines as well!

All we need know is for one of the many brilliant minds that frequent these boards to sit down and nut out how that works!!!

Thay are asking for those willing to do just that to step forward! So, come on, who's up for it?

 

[MrMyth]

Once again, what for Paizo would be a messageboard post is provided by WotC as part of DDi's "content".

Edit: It seems I wasn't particularly clear.

This should have been a messageboard post. For Paizo it would have been a messageboard post. It should not be considered part of the "content" of DDi, just as the atrocious Ampersand should simply be a blog or messageboard post.

Just to be clear... it isn't part of the content of DDI. It, like the Rule of Three, Legends and Lore, and various other new features on their website are not DDI exclusive content - they are free posts for whomever to read.

Keeping this on the website instead of a messageboard is a way of making it more easily accessible - it has nothing to do with having it 'take up' DDI content.

As someone who is currently disappointed in the reduced content in DDI, I can't help but feel like these sorts of meaningless complaints make it very hard for WotC to get any accurate feedback over what is and is not genuine criticism worth listening to.

 

[Jack99]

Once again, what for Paizo would be a messageboard post is provided by WotC as part of DDi's "content".

Edit: It seems I wasn't particularly clear.

This should have been a messageboard post. For Paizo it would have been a messageboard post. It should not be considered part of the "content" of DDi, just as the atrocious Ampersand should simply be a blog or messageboard post.

As mentioned, you dont pay for it. Also keep in mind that a lot of us never read WotC boards, bc this is the true home of Dnd on the interwebs.

 

[jbear]

Just to be clear... it isn't part of the content of DDI. It, like the Rule of Three, Legends and Lore, and various other new features on their website are not DDI exclusive content - they are free posts for whomever to read.

Keeping this on the website instead of a messageboard is a way of making it more easily accessible - it has nothing to do with having it 'take up' DDI content.

As someone who is currently disappointed in the reduced content in DDI, I can't help but feel like these sorts of meaningless complaints make it very hard for WotC to get any accurate feedback over what is and is not genuine criticism worth listening to.

True.

Hard to win it seems.

On the one hand: 'They are not communicating with US!!!!!!'

On the other hand: 'I don't want to pay for them to communicate with us!!!!'
(even though the article is free)

They may as well drag themselves outside, throw themselves in the dust, kick themselves all the way over to the highest tree, climb it and hang themselves, because, hell they aint never gonna win!

 

[delericho]

They may as well drag themselves outside, throw themselves in the dust, kick themselves all the way over to the highest tree, climb it and hang themselves, because, hell they aint never gonna win!

That sucks. They did it wrong.

 

[The Little Raven]

Honestly, how are these articles any different from Scale Mail, From the Editor, and Sage Advice articles that used to be in the old print versions.

These articles are free, unlike the ones in the print version of Dragon.

 

[Aegeri]

As mentioned, you dont pay for it. Also keep in mind that a lot of us never read WotC boards, bc this is the true home of Dnd on the interwebs.

Anything that allows someone not to read the official boards is a good thing.

 

[mudlock]

Honestly I think the real issue is that PHB3 occupies a very awkward place in the game. Psionics has mechanical issues and was always a peripheral part of D&D. Seeker and Runepriest almost seem like they existed to fill out the book. They're interesting ideas, but didn't really provide character archetypes that were in high demand or couldn't exist in existing classes in some form. Hybrids are fairly niche too, mostly interesting to hard core players. Kind of seems like this book was more an exercise in carrying out a plan that had already been basically abandoned.

This is precisely what I was thinking as I stood in my FLGS and didn't buy the book. Monk was about the only thing that interested me, and the value/dollar just wasn't there, for me.

 

[Obryn]

I disagree. One of the major (and, IMO, valid) criticisms of WotC lately is that they're not doing enough to communicate with the fans. By publishing "Letters to the Editor" and "Rule of Three" they are at least providing some communication.

It may not be much, but by picking even just three letters (or questions) per month, they are least providing a guaranteed means of direct communication with the relevant people. And that's important.

I whole-heartedly support these additions to the DDI.

Ditto.

And I pretty much agree - WotC's been doing a lot of damnably confusing stuff as of late, and even moderated, reviewed, edited, and brief dialog is better than nothing.

-O