People who do not frequent wizards.com

[DonTadow]

Neither place has been confirmed as "the place where we are taking feedback" . I hope their reading and they get a good understanding of what is being asked.

I do hope that they take enworld a little more seriously than their own forumns. After all, if i need to retake the marketshare lead and outsell the previous edition, why would i be talking to my old customers. I know what they want.

It's the folk who fled to pathfinder, not because it was a more amazing system tha n3.5, but beause it incorporated community feedback. Because top designers like monte cook and skip williams backed it.

 

[nnms]

Monte Cook commented about playtesting:

"Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin." - Monte Cook.

Ugh.

I'm not happy to see "lurker" unless it's actually a monster called a lurker he's talking about. I dislike combat roles for monsters as well and if combat still revolves around them, the game may end up being too close to 4E for my liking. I don't want a game where I kill "brutes" or "soldiers" or "elite lurkers" or whatever.

Categories for monsters that are rigid enough that saying which category a given monster belongs to tells you more important information than describing the monster by name are too rigid for me.

So maybe the fears of 4.5E aren't as unfounded as I would like.

EDIT:

I decided to start a thread about this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...r-roles-mentioned-monte-cook.html#post5775641

 

[Dire Bare]

Monte Cook commented about playtesting:

"Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin." - Monte Cook.

Ugh.

I'm not happy to see "lurker" unless it's actually a monster called a lurker he's talking about. I dislike combat roles for monsters as well and if combat still revolves around them, the game may end up being too close to 4E for my liking. I don't want a game where I kill "brutes" or "soldiers" or "elite lurkers" or whatever.

Categories for monsters that are rigid enough that saying which category a given monster belongs to tells you more important information than describing the monster by name are too rigid for me.

So maybe the fears of 4.5E aren't as unfounded as I would like.

Sigh. A "lurker" is a classic D&D monster that, well, lurks up on the ceiling, then drops down and swallows somebody. You can relax . . . although there probably will be monster roles, however "role" is a background element. When Monte posts, "My Striker just critted on a Leader!", then you can be worried.

 

[nnms]

Sigh. A "lurker" is a classic D&D monster that, well, lurks up on the ceiling, then drops down and swallows somebody. You can relax . . . although there probably will be monster roles, however "role" is a background element. When Monte posts, "My Striker just critted on a Leader!", then you can be worried.

I hope you are right.

Were there lurkers in the original version of that module? Any clue that he's talking about a specific monster and not a category?

 

[Beolveig]

I hope you are right.

Were there lurkers in the original version of that module? Any clue that he's talking about a specific monster and not a category?

There was a lurker...think it was called the lurker above. I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about. They would drop on your character from above enveloping them and constricting to death. I don't think there's anything like it in 4e as it would be hard to do on a grid. One of my many problems with 4e and hope it is in the new edition.