New Ampersand from Bill Slavicsek

[Badkarmaboy]

They're trying to sell it, and trying to give the impression "Everything is okay! No need to panic!"

Suggesting that something is utterly and absolutely broken and the writer needs to get back on his meds doesn't encourage much faith in the ability of the rules writers, because "OMG they're writing utterly and absolutely broken things! WHAT IF THEY DIDN'T CATCH THEM ALL?!"

I'm not quite following you. Your first sentence I understand well enough. I'd say they're not giving the impression everything is ok, everything is probably chugging along much the way they've expected. We're not talking about "noob" game designers.

It's your second point I don't get. I was stating that I can see a playtester slamming wotc for having a stupid rule/idea in the game. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Could it be Catgirls?

I can has catgurlz plz?

 

[Rechan]

It's your second point I don't get. I was stating that I can see a playtester slamming wotc for having a stupid rule/idea in the game. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I'm saying that if a designer said WotC had a STUPID idea, then that would cause a ripple effect to make certain people go "Oh god, what if they have more stupid rules that this guy didn't notice?"

And then other people would say "Hey, wait aminute that stupid rule was in 3.0 - they're insulting the 3.0 designers!"

You think I'm joking? There are people here who have gotten upset that all the designers are saying 3e is a terrible game and you're dumb for liking it and 4e is the bees knees and you should liek it too or we'll come to your house and make you play it because the 3.0 designers didnt' know what they were doing.

 

[WayneLigon]

Can you really see these people writing to WoTC saying 'This is rubbish! What are you people smoking?'

I know they get feedback like that; they've said themselves that they get stuff like that (which is why in 3E, Paladins and Monks still had multiclass penalties, for instance) and act on it.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm saying that if a designer said WotC had a STUPID idea, then that would cause a ripple effect to make certain people go "Oh god, what if they have more stupid rules that this guy didn't notice?"

This already happened. Remember when Mearls mentioned that at one point they were considering an aggro mechanic?

 

[Klaus]

Oh, I really dislike "Hallmark Featherwastes", as I call the typical angel you's see as a statue or greeting card.

I prefer angels to be the "Fear Not." rather than "There-there childe."

The war-form of Pasquale's guardian angel is a fantastic example of how an angel should look. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0740723677/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-4745537-0998564#reader-link

And I, on the other hand, prefer angels to actually look like, y'know, angels.

It's okay to have some angels look differently, but I think there's room (and mythological precedence) for the winged humanoid angel.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

If you listen to the podcast, they gave indication of this.

One of the playtesters loved using a greataxe - it did more damage than any other weapon in the game. So they tore that out.

They also keep changing things drastically when it comes to Warlock abilities; when the warlock can do extra damage to Y.

I remember that part of the podcast. The playtester in question was quite upset that it had been changed, in a light-hearted kind of way.

I think I call some sort of reference to it being "more like a siege weapon" than a melee weapon. And when he was asked what rules changes he wanted, he jokingly requested for the greataxe to go back to doing that much damage.

I also agree that the playtesters are unlikely to find anything that is "massively" broken or completely wrong. That's the job of the game designers - not to produce a game with those problems. They will, of course, have the odd issue but by and large the playtesting is used for fine-tuning, not massive revision.

 

[Aeolius]

To be fair, the cyclops is already in 3e. Just look in Deities & Demigods.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To be fair, the cyclops is already in 3e. Just look in Deities & Demigods.

Do we have to?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And I, on the other hand, prefer angels to actually look like, y'know, angels.

It's okay to have some angels look differently, but I think there's room (and mythological precedence) for the winged humanoid angel.

I think DMs will be able to handwave it to suit their preferences -- me, I like the idea of angels shifting back and forth between a friendly and a crap-your-pants appearance -- and I imagine we'll see Hallmark angels in an OGL product.