D&D 4E The WotC designers will be bashing 4e once 5e is announced . . .

[Raven Crowking]

I couldn't find any threads where Pokemount bashers were being attacked.

Must not have looked too hard.....

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-60674.html

Short thread, specifically about that term, seems pretty tongue-in-cheek to me, only a few posters.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=161453

Short thread, one person uses the term, no reply to that person.

I call. Let's see your cards.

Done already.

RC

 

[Riley]

Revisionist history is a beautiful thing.

Change is a constant in all fields. A good chunk of every generation of scientists makes a career of picking apart and sometimes tearing up the work of their mentors' generation. Similarly, the easiest way to sell the new thing is to contrast it with the annoying things about the old thing. I don't mind the hype.

I happen to think that most of the time, change is good. In D&D, it keeps things interesting. Still, when I miss something from the past, I just pull an old book from my bookshelf, and open it up at the game table.

 

[Umbran]

Seriously, for years now (literally) we've been giving 3.5 a group hug. And now suddenly out comes this long list of things that "don't work".

If they come out and list the things that they feel don't work well, they're "bashing their own game".

And if they stayed silent, and gave no reasoning at all for most of the changes, would they get a good reception? No, then it would be grist for the "change for the sake of putting out a money-grubbing edition" argument!

So, if they justify themselves, they get pounced on. If they don't, same thing. How are these guys supposed to win?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

A huge one is monster design. I remember the early days of 3e how everyone was raving about the brilliance of "intuitive" monster stats in 3e and how "finally" monsters and PCs had the same rules governing their design.

Now they trumpet what is, essentially, a return to the monster design philosophy of AD&D 1e/2e. And everyone cheers!

"We have always been at war with Eurasia."

I'm just curious if you're getting the impression it's a return to the monster design philosophy of AD&D 1e/2e from the Dev & Design blog stating

"We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't)

, or did it involve standing up first?

And are you suggesting you've never seen a complaint that statting a high-level NPC takes too much time?

 

[Jack99]

Asmodeus has been a god in my campaigns for more than a decade.

4shadowing 4tw! ( )

 

[Raven Crowking]

A huge one is monster design. I remember the early days of 3e how everyone was raving about the brilliance of "intuitive" monster stats in 3e and how "finally" monsters and PCs had the same rules governing their design.

Now they trumpet what is, essentially, a return to the monster design philosophy of AD&D 1e/2e. And everyone cheers!

I know. This is actually a tough one with me, because both types of design have advantages. Ideally, we'd see the "mooks" designed like 1e/2e, and the "exceptionals" designed like 3.X. That was one of the things that I've been working on for my homebrew. The neat thing is, that might well be what 4.0 will include.

RC

 

[maddman75]

A huge one is monster design. I remember the early days of 3e how everyone was raving about the brilliance of "intuitive" monster stats in 3e and how "finally" monsters and PCs had the same rules governing their design.

Now they trumpet what is, essentially, a return to the monster design philosophy of AD&D 1e/2e. And everyone cheers!

"We have always been at war with Eurasia."

I don't see the designers saying they're going back to AD&D. From what I've read monsters will still have ability scores, feats, skills, and so on. They won't be generated just like a PC. They'll have some simpler rules because adversaries don't need as much detail. I seriously doubt we'll be back to not knowing what a horse's strength score is.

 

[delericho]

A huge one is monster design. I remember the early days of 3e how everyone was raving about the brilliance of "intuitive" monster stats in 3e and how "finally" monsters and PCs had the same rules governing their design.

Now they trumpet what is, essentially, a return to the monster design philosophy of AD&D 1e/2e. And everyone cheers!

Now, this is a genuine case. However, over the past several years, a lot of DMs have found that this change hasn't had the impact that was expected. Advancing monsters, customising monsters, and designing new monsters is quite a chore, far more than it should be. It's especially bad when dealing with dragons, which should be one of the iconic monsters of the game, but are actually a real pain to use.

So, switching back (partially) to the older design paradigm is probably a good idea. But, yes, it is right to say that this is a case where the previous change was hailed as genius, and now this change back is being hailed as genius in the same way.

 

[shurai]

This is what I think on the subject:

"Life gets boring, someone invents another necessity, and once again we turn the crank on the screwjack of progress hoping that nobody gets screwed."

 

[Riley]

It's not doublethink. There's no contradiction in the following statement:

5 > 4 > 3.5 > 3

QFT.

I loved AD&D. I loved 2e. I love 3e. I love 3.5e. I've also had significant complaints about each of them.

At the very least, 3.5e => 3e >> 2e => 1e.