I seem to be missing the point on the online CB

[DracoSuave]

Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.

I'll take this bet.

Specifically, that old classes won't be supported. I believe there will be support for old classes and new classes.

 

[No Name]

It will keep folks on WotC's site rather than elsewhere. It's a small step towards doing all your online gaming at wizards.com.

When it comes to D&D, I prefer to stay offline. I have no problems with the other players at the table using dice rollers, laptops, etc. I just like to play the old school way. However, making characters with the CB is pure awesome sauce. I hate that they think online only is the way to go with it. As long as my way of doing D&D doesn't go the way of the dinosaur, I'm ok with with the digital initiative thing.

 

[Ryujin]

Uh... no.

Here's easy bet #1.

Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.

Now I'm curious if the supposed Bladesinger from the upcoming FR neverwinter nights thing is going to be a new class or the essential version of the swordmage.

Except that the existence of the new classes, that are nominally tied to the old ones as well, creates the possibility for supporting old and new at the same time. Fighter feats, for example, can either be macro (class wide), or apply to a specific subset based on the possession of a class feature (marks, etc.).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'll take this bet.

Specifically, that old classes won't be supported. I believe there will be support for old classes and new classes.

Sounds good to me. When I say old classes, I mean PHB, PHB2, and PHB3. Hell, we'll throw unessentiallized verisons of Assassin, Swordmage and Artificer too.

As soon as the new book comes out by WoTC next year, it's over for the non-essentiallized classes. WoTC will not want to split the fan base, especially with books that are no longer being printed, and despite their claims to the countrary, will probably never be printed again.

I say cut off point... March.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Except that the existence of the new classes, that are nominally tied to the old ones as well, creates the possibility for supporting old and new at the same time. Fighter feats, for example, can either be macro (class wide), or apply to a specific subset based on the possession of a class feature (marks, etc.).

Same could go for races too. My point is that all development will be going towards the 'essentialized' bits. Anything that falls out for older material will be crumbs from the plate of essentials.

 

[Darkness]

Alright, let's all stay respectful of our fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but don't make it personal. Also, don't invite someone to attack you. Thanks.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've had yearly subscriptions only, with my only lapse to test and see if I fell out of the DDI group on the WOTC boards.

Did you?

 

[Bagpuss]

Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.

Actually logically it can fly, because it does. The myth about the Bumblebee not being able to fly was down a flawed application of the to the laws of aerodynamics and not logic.

 

[eamon]

Actually logically it can fly, because it does. The myth about the Bumblebee not being able to fly was down a flawed application of the to the laws of aerodynamics and not logic.

Wikipedia (as usual), has a large paragraph examining the origin of this myth. In short, it's speculated that this originated in 1934 when two frenchmen calculated that a bumblebee can't fly - the context implying can't fly in the same way an airplane does. Of course, summarizing that as "ZOMG physics says bumblebee flight is unpossibly!!1one!" is much more fun.

Somehow, this reminds me of rules laywering: Context, what's that?

 

[Jhaelen]

In short, it's speculated that this originated in 1934 when two frenchmen calculated that a bumblebee can't fly - the context implying can't fly in the same way an airplane does. Of course, summarizing that as "ZOMG physics says bumblebee flight is unpossibly!!1one!" is much more fun.

In other words, yet another example of the Science News Cycle