Unearthed Arcana!

[DEFCON 1]

Right now, I have to add a simple magic weapon to my sheet in the CB then make a special card for the weapon's power and properties in another utility I have. Having to do such a workaround really is unacceptable.

I have a feeling WotC is completely okay that you unfortunately have to actually hand write some info on your character sheet and power cards. I know they don't look as "pretty" that way, but I guess that's a cross we all have to bear.

You know, it's ironic. So many people have complained that 4E has gotten further and further away from what Dungeons & Dragons was originally supposed to be... but yet here's a perfect opportunity to go "back to basics"... (i.e. actually hand writing out a character sheet like we all had to do back in the 80s)... and now there's complaints having to do it.

 

[The Little Raven]

There is no reason why these features shouldn't have been in the builder from the start.

Yes, there is.

Because everything programming related is easier said by people on forums than actually done by people who write code.

 

[Squire James]

Oh god, no thank you. Data Entry is not how I want to spend my free time. I do enough of that prepping for online play. Forcing me to input entire classes? No thanks. Gimme a complete program and let me deal with the outliers.

Why are people acting like not having something in the CB means that it can never be used? Seriously? You refuse to use anything at your table that's not in the CB? That's just sad.

I remember the bad old days of Code Monkey and the like. Never, ever do I want to go back to that.

I can see your point. Given enough time and no Cease And Desist orders, I think Code Monkey or someone else would have risen to the top and become very good.

The idea I was forwarding was to have someone write up the hypothetical new classes and such, and create something like an XML file that could be imported and added to that long check-box list (or deleted, if someone doesn't like it or if its info was part of a larger package you want to load in instead).

Just so you understand, it is my opinion that the main reason D&D is a fad that has lasted so long is its customization. The current attitudes of people toward the CB and the proprietary nature of the database combines to put a damper on customization in general. In my opinion, this is not only a bad thing it will eventually be a FATAL thing (bad RPG pun intended).

Anyway, enough thread hijacking for now... if I have any other ideas I will post them in a more appropriate forum or thread.

 

[Scribble]

Just so you understand, it is my opinion that the main reason D&D is a fad that has lasted so long is its customization. The current attitudes of people toward the CB and the proprietary nature of the database combines to put a damper on customization in general. In my opinion, this is not only a bad thing it will eventually be a FATAL thing (bad RPG pun intended).

I don't know... I think this is a leap.

I mean the CB is a tool, like any other tool. Right now the benefits of the tool outweigh the drawbacks. If something came out that was really awesome, but not supported I think you'd see people move away from the tool, rather then from the game as a whole...

Also I think there's still a ton of room for customization in the game despite the CB (especially on the DM's side.)

That said- I think the CB should allow more customization.

My only thoughts are they don't want a lot of people putting whacked out stuff in, then assuming it's WoTC's fault that the stuff messed up their game?

Or they don't have the time to overhaul the system to do House Rules better... I'm hoping though when that book comes out in the future (that teaches you how to build characters from scratch n stuff) they'll add more HR support to accommodate it.

 

[Squire James]

I have a feeling WotC is completely okay that you unfortunately have to actually hand write some info on your character sheet and power cards. I know they don't look as "pretty" that way, but I guess that's a cross we all have to bear.

You know, it's ironic. So many people have complained that 4E has gotten further and further away from what Dungeons & Dragons was originally supposed to be... but yet here's a perfect opportunity to go "back to basics"... (i.e. actually hand writing out a character sheet like we all had to do back in the 80s)... and now there's complaints having to do it.

I don't mind writing a little note or 2 on a character sheet (like filling in how much damage a particular character does with Magic Missile that is currently not calculated). When it gets to be whole character sheets, though, well I have better things to do with that time.

Darn it! If this Character Builder wasn't so *(^$&@ GOOD in the first place, we wouldn't be discussing all this!

 

[Camelot]

I love writing out character sheets by hand. I spend hours doing it. All by myself.

 

[jelmore]

Please, WotC, please don't the character builder not being able to support a new design idea prevent you from publishing said idea. New ideas are good, and they're what I give you money for.

I agree.

There is nothing in the Curses article that requires Character Builder support; it's using the disease track format for another purpose.

This column is in Dungeon: the publication generally aimed at DMs. So my hope is that we will see rules variants and subsystems aimed at running encounters and sessions, as opposed to experimental classes/powers/races/etc.

This is where we would find things like Gabe from Penny Arcade's falling combat rules. Or Keith Baker's use of the disease track to support serious injuries. Or probably any number of things that have been discussed in the homebrew rules forums.

 

[MrMyth]

Please, WotC, please don't the character builder not being able to support a new design idea prevent you from publishing said idea. New ideas are good, and they're what I give you money for.

Agreed!

I do want WotC to at least try and make these options balanced in the system. But I don't want the ability to mechanically implement them in the CB to be a reason to not come out with good ideas if they have them!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Add me to the chorus saying "More of this!" I find the idea that "If it can't fit into the programs, it shouldn't be presented even as an optional rule" to be anathema to the spirit of creativity that's made every edition of this game work.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Add me to the chorus saying "More of this!" I find the idea that "If it can't fit into the programs, it shouldn't be presented even as an optional rule" to be anathema to the spirit of creativity that's made every edition of this game work.

In that vein, sure. For example, the curse article is a good article for the type of thing that woudln't be in the DDI anyway.

However, part of what WoTC themselves have said is that part of the reasoning behind not putting it in isn't only due to 'spirit of creativity', it's due to potential balance issues and lack of playtesting.

I suppose I could be completely wrong though. Perhaps there will be no paragon classes or equipment or magic items that woudl be useful in the DDI and we will NOT see again later on down the road, having paid for such things twice now.

But as noted, that's one man's opinion.