D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

Redwizard007

Adventurer
yeah plus any monster with spell slots... I mean it is one of the most common cross over spells in the game.
1. If you are using updated monsters, then they are rarely using spell slots.
2. If they are using spell slots, then they can be countered.
3. If we aren't using up to date RAW, then why are we even having this conversation?
yeah, 13 death knights that rode out of the dark tower every 13 years and game started "it has been just shy of 12 years since the last assault" wasn't a bad bad day as much as a bad bad year and ahlf campaign
If this is a regular occurrence, why don't PCs have a preselected answer for it? Bad wizard! Bad, bad wizard. No cookie.
wait in what world do most of your encounters start more then 60ft away?
Everything that isn't a dungeon or an ambush. Are both the PCs and monsters nearsighted?
Cleric warlock sorcerer and bard are all full casters (and some of them can counterspell too) so again target melee characters without prof is the best.
Sure.
I don't know how bane helps with saves, but in general I don't count on bless for every encounter.
Bane helps, or rather hinders, concentration saves, and if I'm fighting something that casts spells targeting my allies weak saves then Bless is an absolute must.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Dausuul

Legend
For most of its run, 4e was making stupendous amounts of money from DDi even if it did not sell a single book.
Which, of course, is why they slashed the D&D staff to the bone over multiple rounds of layoffs, created a new edition, and shut down DDI. That's what big businesses do with things that make stupendous amounts of money.

(To be fair, DDI might have brought in quite a bit of revenue, and still been unprofitable to operate; technology is expensive. Particularly when you have to find developers who both know Silverlight and want to use it. But it was obviously not a cash cow.)
 

DCs are 10+spell level+ ability score though in 3E.
1 thing I think 5e got right (but also wrong) was taking spell level out. Resisting a 1st level spell should not be easier then a 9th level one by a master mage... after all the 1st level one he has spent more time mastering.

HOWEVER the part they got wrong is they left hold person and tasha's laugh (and others) as SoS/SoD spells at these low levels... if you target the right save you can take down high level threats with those 1st level spells.
 

1. If you are using updated monsters, then they are rarely using spell slots.
yes and no (I admit I didn't buy monster of the multiverse because we are about to edition change) my understanding is there are still spell casters... the one I have on hand is soth
soth.png

so even if he didn't have spell slots he has spells (I do 100% get behind the special abilities like his cataclysmic fire and word of death not being spells per say though)
2. If they are using spell slots, then they can be countered.
yeah, again counterspell is a thing if your wizard didn't use his reaction AND had it preped.
3. If we aren't using up to date RAW, then why are we even having this conversation?
I mean the game in qustion WAS uptodate for its time, and we are like mostly useing playtest stuff right now but also playing around with the special abilitie things.
If this is a regular occurrence, why don't PCs have a preselected answer for it? Bad wizard! Bad, bad wizard. No cookie.
the first time it happened the casters were no help... the 2nd time we took a rest, plane shifted then scry then teleport then plane shifted back to rest again... so that time we DID have an answer it was just a bad one and took for ever.
Everything that isn't a dungeon or an ambush. Are both the PCs and monsters nearsighted?
no one is nearsighted but yelling 60ft or more is annoying so most encounters you approach to talk to see if they are a threat (at least in my experience) not withstanding obvious enemies, dungeons and ambushes I would say most out encounters start within 30-40ft with more being closer to melee not father.
 

Which, of course, is why they slashed the D&D staff to the bone over multiple rounds of layoffs, created a new edition, and shut down DDI. That's what big businesses do with things that make stupendous amounts of money.
the annual lay offs started long before 4e and they claimed (again believe it or not) that the goal was to bring the pathfinder players and OSR players back to modern D&D.

From what I understand (and IMO so no I don't have numbers) it didn't matter if 4e was selling and making money as longas they were not makign ALL the sales they could.
(To be fair, DDI might have brought in quite a bit of revenue, and still been unprofitable to operate; technology is expensive. Particularly when you have to find developers who both know Silverlight and want to use it. But it was obviously not a cash cow.)
 

Jaeger

That someone better
Which, of course, is why they slashed the D&D staff to the bone over multiple rounds of layoffs, created a new edition, and shut down DDI. That's what big businesses do with things that make stupendous amounts of money.

(To be fair, DDI might have brought in quite a bit of revenue, and still been unprofitable to operate; technology is expensive. Particularly when you have to find developers who both know Silverlight and want to use it. But it was obviously not a cash cow.)

For Corporations, just being profitable isn't enough sometimes as well.

I'm fairly positive that Hasbro had set certain ROI thresholds. And if their 'opportunity cost' thresholds were not met - they pull the plug based on the idea that they could make 'more money' investing in something else.
 

payn

Legend
HOWEVER the part they got wrong is they left hold person and tasha's laugh (and others) as SoS/SoD spells at these low levels... if you target the right save you can take down high level threats with those 1st level spells.
To me this is a feature. I see it as part of strategy preparing for the battle. If a team is well equipped they can punch above their weight. I am not saying level 1 newbs should be able to take out a full grown dragon; but an ogre that falls upon them? I like this and systems like PF2 make it impossible because of level. Not saying the math is perfect, I think it can be tweaked, but I don't like level invulnerability because its higher. YMMV.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Cheese?

hmmmm Stat divergence is a thing... Remember if you only have to worry about 3 stats and 3 saves (3e and 4e) keeping those less divergent themselves is usually far easier and in 5e you have twice as many stats and twice as many saves to keep shored up. And what seems like far fewer resources to do so.

No early in 3.0 we played it like late 2E. Most other groups I saw played it at a casual level.

Like that 3.0 was fine. Once you figure out how to break/cheese it the wheels fall off.

Playing 3E casually is the way to do it imho.
 

To me this is a feature.
not to me and my group. we have to make gentilment agreements not to prep spells that shut eachother down
I see it as part of strategy preparing for the battle. If a team is well equipped they can punch above their weight.
even without SOS 5e is great for pcS HITTING ABOVE THERE WEIGHT
I am not saying level 1 newbs should be able to take out a full grown dragon; but an ogre that falls upon them? I like this and systems like PF2 make it impossible because of level. Not saying the math is perfect, I think it can be tweaked, but I don't like level invulnerability because its higher. YMMV.
sorry jut have to agree to disagree
 


GreyLord

Legend
Which, of course, is why they slashed the D&D staff to the bone over multiple rounds of layoffs, created a new edition, and shut down DDI. That's what big businesses do with things that make stupendous amounts of money.

(To be fair, DDI might have brought in quite a bit of revenue, and still been unprofitable to operate; technology is expensive. Particularly when you have to find developers who both know Silverlight and want to use it. But it was obviously not a cash cow.)
Off-topic time...

Here's a hypothetical made up story that came to mind after reading your post that could be hilarious to consider (and it could be more of an analogy in other areas of the business world...maybe)...

DDI WAS making a lot of money, but after being created was seen as not really needing that many people to actually run and update. Thus it was making silly cash for operating costs only.

So, they cut it to the bone. They had 3 (give or take a few) people running it. One who basically held the keys to the Kingdom and knew everything about it and how to run it.

Then that person quit.

That's the...we're screwed moment. No one else knows how to actually keep it working. We transferred too much of it to online control. It is going to be an exorbitant cost to get someone who can dissect it and make sure we can run it if it crashes hard to the point it needs to have a critical part of the program rebuilt.

Stupid in laying off everyone else who knew what they were doing before to save costs. Now what?

Well, 4e is already coming to an end because it couldn't make 50 mil like Has-bros were wanting us to. Good time to shut it all down.

Good story, nice time. True...not a chance in the world...but dumb stuff like this happens more than people realize in the business world because we don't value the computer guys enough to accept them at their word when they say they need redundancy in positions and knowledge.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
yes in general if you could erase all power plays from you and your groups minds any edition would workwell

Apparently they playtested 3.0 more like a 2E game and didn't playtest the higher levels.

I was plugged into the internet hivemind back then. We didn't do the Uber builds but we're playing a different style than the other 3E groups.

That's around when I started to suspect forum goers are a minority, the game doesn't generally get played at higher levels and most gamers aren't power gamers.

4E kinda cinfirmed it. It fixed problems most people had no issue with or even knew they existed. And 5E data has essentially confirmed it officially.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Off-topic time...

Here's a hypothetical made up story that came to mind after reading your post that could be hilarious to consider (and it could be more of an analogy in other areas of the business world...maybe)...

DDI WAS making a lot of money, but after being created was seen as not really needing that many people to actually run and update. Thus it was making silly cash for operating costs only.

So, they cut it to the bone. They had 3 (give or take a few) people running it. One who basically held the keys to the Kingdom and knew everything about it and how to run it.

Then that person quit.

That's the...we're screwed moment. No one else knows how to actually keep it working. We transferred too much of it to online control. It is going to be an exorbitant cost to get someone who can dissect it and make sure we can run it if it crashes hard to the point it needs to have a critical part of the program rebuilt.

Stupid in laying off everyone else who knew what they were doing before to save costs. Now what?

Well, 4e is already coming to an end because it couldn't make 50 mil like Has-bros were wanting us to. Good time to shut it all down.

Good story, nice time. True...not a chance in the world...but dumb stuff like this happens more than people realize in the business world because we don't value the computer guys enough to accept them at their word when they say they need redundancy in positions and knowledge.

Well they throw around 5 million a year for DDI. Iirc the rpg market 2013 was worth 13 million according to icv2.

Last I saw post 5E that pushed it up to around 60 million.

Even if online income doesn't get counted that's a big difference. Not that's the market not income for WotC.

We don't know the operating costs of DDI. Nor if the numbers were active users or just accounts paid for at one point. 5 million may have been peak DDI.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Good story, nice time. True...not a chance in the world...but dumb stuff like this happens more than people realize in the business world because we don't value the computer guys enough to accept them at their word when they say they need redundancy in positions and knowledge.
So true. It's happening to me right now. New owners took over and laid off most of our UI team, then transferred the remaining guy to a different department. Then, when they realized there was no one left to do UI development, they asked me to learn how to do it. I said sure, because it's a great opportunity for me, but I pointed out that it isn't going to happen overnight. So now I'm getting paid to learn, but the project is basically dead in the water because there's no one who can do the front end.

I'm as certain as I can possibly be that the new owners didn't give any serious thought to the technical needs of our project. They just assumed there was fat they could trim, when our team was already almost as lean as it could possibly get and still function.

The power of magical profit-driven thinking in action.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
So true. It's happening to me right now. New owners took over and laid off most of our UI team, then transferred the remaining guy to a different department. Then, when they realized there was no one left to do UI development, they asked me to learn how to do it. I said sure, because it's a great opportunity for me, but I pointed out that it isn't going to happen overnight. So now I'm getting paid to learn, but the project is basically dead in the water because there's no one who can do the front end.

I'm as certain as I can possibly be that the new owners didn't give any serious thought to the technical needs of our project. They just assumed there was fat they could trim, when our team was already almost as lean as it could possibly get and still function.

The power of magical profit-driven thinking in action.

Doesn't code become outdated kinda fast?
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Doesn't code become outdated kinda fast?
It depends, but not necessarily. Languages may rise and fall in popularity, but they don't really get outdated. Programming concepts, like functional/OOP programming and patterns don't get outdated.

Plus, a lot of outdated code still sees use to this day due to legacy projects, many of which need to be maintained.
 

Oofta

Legend
So true. It's happening to me right now. New owners took over and laid off most of our UI team, then transferred the remaining guy to a different department. Then, when they realized there was no one left to do UI development, they asked me to learn how to do it. I said sure, because it's a great opportunity for me, but I pointed out that it isn't going to happen overnight. So now I'm getting paid to learn, but the project is basically dead in the water because there's no one who can do the front end.

I'm as certain as I can possibly be that the new owners didn't give any serious thought to the technical needs of our project. They just assumed there was fat they could trim, when our team was already almost as lean as it could possibly get and still function.

The power of magical profit-driven thinking in action.

Something similar happened to me. We were working on a big project to do revisions that it badly needed, they decided to do mass layoffs. Two weeks later they called me up and asked me if I wanted my old job back supporting the old system. Being an in-demand IT person, I didn't literally laugh out loud because but there was no way I was going back.

Kind of amazing how some companies think reducing head count will automatically leads to more profit. Someone has to do the work to build or support their products.

In any case, good luck and have fun learning!
 

Oofta

Legend
It depends, but not necessarily. Languages may rise and fall in popularity, but they don't really get outdated. Programming concepts, like functional/OOP programming and patterns don't get outdated.

Plus, a lot of outdated code still sees use to this day due to legacy projects, many of which need to be maintained.

Too true. Odds are fairly good that your insurance company or bank still has COBOL code that was originally written in the 70s. Frequently it's code that nobody really understands so they can't replace it. :oops:
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Too true. Odds are fairly good that your insurance company or bank still has COBOL code that was originally written in the 70s. Frequently it's code that nobody really understands so they can't replace it. :oops:
Yep, I know quite a few retired programmers who still make a very nice side income supporting software that no one else understands, because that tech simply isn't in demand anymore (so no one really wants to learn it).
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top