[UPDATED] Sean K Reynolds just rehired by WotC

He's an opinionated bald man, why can't we slam him?

Probably good news. They certainly need the help.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Thanks! And thanks to everyone who's said nice things!

(Sorry to jump in on a negative post, but it really bothers me when people dredge up old news and are wrong about it to boot.)

Hey, no worries - thanks for stopping by and best of luck in the new job!

Ok, now that pleasantries are dispensed with, got any STUNNING BRAND NEW TIDBITS OF REALMSLORE you can share with us?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Please don't post things as truth when they're easily proven as speculation or error.

I don't think he was trying to make the argument that he was speaking gospel, merely stating what he understood or how people felt. I'm glad you were able to clarify your positions, however, especially the conflict you had to deal with by being a FAQ maintainer when you don't get final say on what the FAQ's content is. I've had to do the same with policies at work, and it truly sucks to be put in a position where you've got to be the bad guy.

1. VOP isn't a feat. It's an option your character can choose, just like "I'm left-handed" or "I have a scar on my face."
2. VOP technically is a kind of archetype because you have to give up still mind to be able to take any of the listed vows. That was not my choice, I was overridden and told it had to have a cost (originally, anyone could take one or more vows, and not have to give up any other character options to do that, but obviously only characters who use ki would benefit).

That was how it came across to me reading the book, when I read between the lines.

Honestly, the only problems I ever saw with Vow of Poverty were:

1. You were playing in a game where VoP progression was faster than wealth was made available to PCs, and the feat was banned because it was "ridiculously powerful".
2. You were playing in a game where VoP progression was slower than wealth was made available to PCs, and the feat was mocked because it was "laughably weak".

The problem wasn't the feat, it's that it only worked well in games with a fairly narrow range of wealth availability. Since the feat doesn't give you directions for correcting this problem, it kind of ends up feeling wrong. *shrug* I still had fun with the feat when I got to use it, however.

I'd have rather seen a table with abilities tied to gp progression instead of level that used the average wealth of the rest of the party to advance (with strict notes for the DM that VoP players *must* get an equal share of the wealth). That would certainly be harder to design, but might've worked a lot better in practice. You'd get people abusing things to push themselves down the table, but players being abusive kind of turned out to be a pervasive problem with 3e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem wasn't the feat, it's that it only worked well in games with a fairly narrow range of wealth availability. Since the feat doesn't give you directions for correcting this problem, it kind of ends up feeling wrong. *shrug* I still had fun with the feat when I got to use it, however.

I believe you're thinking about a different Vow of Poverty. There was a feat in 3.x which granted bonuses to stats and AC, etc, which seems to be in line with what you mention. The Pathfinder version is just an option, available to monks (or anyone else with a ki pool), that gives extra ki in exchange for not using any gear (or one item, at most).

While the Pathfinder version does mean that a monk can make more extra attacks (or gain +4 to AC, or use other ki abilities) much more frequently - this vow giving three to six times as much extra ki as any other vow - it means you never get a cloak of resistance or an amulet of mighty fists or a belt of physical perfection.

 

[spinozajack]

because I was forced to be the FAQ guy, which meant I had to defend FAQs I disagreed with or was overridden about. Which is another reason why I chose to leave.

That must suck, having to defend stuff you disagree with. Kind of like a defense lawyer I guess.

Whatever your reasons for leaving, we all recognize your terrific contributions to D&D and hope that will give us lots of dividends in terms of FR goodness!! Thanks for chiming in here and setting the record straight. (not like I care about ancient history like monks using brass knuckles).

I joined the dark side and decided to actually learn the FR lore because that's where most of the action in 5e seems to be at right now, so I'm looking forward to being able to buy an actual campaign sourcebook one day, if that's in the cards.

I would probably buy it even if I wasn't going to DM, just because I like Lore and maps make me daydream of fantastic adventures. There's also the neverwinter game out now, I wonder if it's any good.

Can you tell us what, if anything, you do like about 5e? Many people here love it, and it would be nice to get your insights on what makes it a good system to design adventures for.

Most of the D&D design team is too afraid (not like we can blame them) to actually post their thoughts in forums instead of publishing them on their own blogs or sites. And most debates are about rules, not lore, so hopefully we can learn from the person in charge of that area.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Hey, Sean - thanks for stopping by! Best of luck and have fun.

 

[Shasarak]

I figure Sean will do well there.

Isn't it sorta funny though how the wheel turns. I wonder how many other former Paizo employees are going to find employment with WotC.

Considering that WotC employees game with Paizo employees, I do not think the distinction is as important as some outsiders may imagine.

 

[Wicht]

Considering that WotC employees game with Paizo employees, I do not think the distinction is as important as some outsiders may imagine.

That really only matters if the ones doing the hiring are also the ones doing the gaming together.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, uh, I believe he kind of did say that.

Nope.

But, to be fair to both you and him, you should read his actual words and come to your own conclusion.

The conclusion is pretty simple. Less than optimal options are ok because some people like those for reasons of their own.

Is your caustic tone really necessary?

Yes. The guy is hated because of brass knuckle rules for monks!

I answered an honest question as accurately as I could. I tried not to be judgmental, and primarily focused on how people *felt* about what he said/did.

Don't take it personally. I wasn't shooting the messenger.

I'm not saying it is bad. I was trying to emphasize that the things he thought or defended*, might not be things he thinks or defends *now.*

I know. You said that this is why he is critiqued by some people and I'm saying critiquing someone for changing is mind is weak. Again, not shooting the messenger.

 

[seebs]

Thanks! And thanks to everyone who's said nice things!

(Sorry to jump in on a negative post, but it really bothers me when people dredge up old news and are wrong about it to boot.)

Really glad to see you around! Your post on absolutes was really well-considered and I wish I'd seen it before our last PF game got to high levels, where it had gotten sort of insane. Well, very insane.

 

[spinozajack]

I wonder when and if a successor to Pathfinder will come out, like building on 5th edition but better. Iron out some of the mistakes they made and rebuild some classes and especially the feats. I would buy it, especially if I could mix and match.

Yes, I know 3rd ed isn't incredibly different in many respects, but the overall balance and the math are quite off.

My tempus paladin in FR is awaiting a war oath! Vengeance is not really the same, it doesn't feel very magical to me.