PDA

View Full Version : Monte Cook left WOTC



Malachei
2012-05-02, 09:39 AM
In his blog (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?montejournal), Monte Cook announced that he's left WOTC, coincidentally just as playtesting begins.

He'd like to avoid drama and not go into details, but explicitly expresses his respect for his co-designers.

How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?

How do you think this will affect its commercial success?

Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?

GutterFace
2012-05-02, 09:45 AM
Maybe even his own D20 spin off?

Anxe
2012-05-02, 10:07 AM
I'd give a non-compete contract to someone as big as him. I doubt he'll be working for Paizo.

gbprime
2012-05-02, 10:20 AM
I'd give a non-compete contract to someone as big as him. I doubt he'll be working for Paizo.

And I wouldn't sign one of those if I were him. He makes his living doing roleplaying design and related activities. A cleverly worded non-compete could prevent him from ever earning that living again.

Non-disclosure agreement, absolutely. Non-compete, heck no.

Malachei
2012-05-02, 10:25 AM
And I wouldn't sign one of those if I were him. He makes his living doing roleplaying design and related activities. A cleverly worded non-compete could prevent him from ever earning that living again.

Non-disclosure agreement, absolutely. Non-compete, heck no.

Especially since there are only a handful of employers in his field of expertise. Actually, probably less.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 11:55 AM
I am so happy. Judging from the things I've read (things that he himself has said), that man stubbornly believes that he knows what his audience wants, is impervious to criticism and doesn't bother doing thorough research on what the problems with D&D's editions have been. This bodes well for 5e.

If he wants to compete with D&D, that's fine. I have ignored PF ever since it first appeared (and I learnt of it back in its infancy) and I can easily ignore whatever system he creates.

Malachei
2012-05-02, 12:13 PM
I am so happy. Judging from the things I've read (things that he himself has said), that man stubbornly believes that he knows what his audience wants, is impervious to criticism and doesn't bother doing thorough research on what the problems with D&D's editions have been. This bodes well for 5e.

If he wants to compete with D&D, that's fine. I have ignored PF ever since it first appeared (and I learnt of it back in its infancy) and I can easily ignore whatever system he creates.

Interesting. I respect him for bringing us 3rd edition together with the design team. I was not aware of statements such as the above, and I'd be interested in reading those. Do you have links/sources for me?

Solaris
2012-05-02, 12:32 PM
Don't they do this with every edition change?
... It's bad that I can ask this. It doesn't really bother me, honestly, 'cause I'm not getting into 4E and probably won't spend the money on 5E either. WotC wants me to come back, they can start printing up material for my game.

Or Monte can. I liked a lot of the stuff he made, particularly the Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved setting.

bokodasu
2012-05-02, 12:37 PM
A cleverly worded non-compete could prevent him from ever earning that living again.


IANAL, but I did do time studying employment law, and the most interesting thing I learned is that non-compete clauses are very rarely enforcable, for just that reason. (Depends on the state how easy they are to break.) They're more for intimidation than anything else - if you go to court, you'll probably win, but most people don't want to go to court.

Anyway. I think this is one of those cases where we have SO little information, there's not even anything really interesting to speculate on. I'm guessing the next version will probably end up somewhat less 3rd-ed-like, but predicting anything else would be absolutely random.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 01:08 PM
Interesting. I respect him for bringing us 3rd edition together with the design team. I was not aware of statements such as the above, and I'd be interested in reading those. Do you have links/sources for me?

Yeah, lemme see what a google search will turn up (I haven't kept the links).

First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). In this link, he tries to explain 3e's failures as "rewarding system mastery." That is, he says that they did not make mistakes designing the system (as any group of humans would understandably make), but that everything that was underpowered or insultingly useless was done on purpose to trick newbies and make experienced players feel better about not taking. Instead of saying "Hey guys, we screwed up, we'll do better next time," he goes "We did not commit a single mistake. It was all on purpose, you see. All part of our clever plan." His example with Toughness is just laughable, insisting that there are situations where it's more useful than virtually anything else a fighter could take. In the specific case he mentions, since the fighter will not be around for long, it's actually even MORE important to ensure that you pick better feats, as you won't have time to play your character for long, so you should get as many "flashy" feats as you can (like Power Attack, Improved Trip and so on).

Second Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary4). He has no idea what he's talking about (look at the spells he points out as overpowered: Harm is just broken, huh? HARM?! Goodness mine, he doesn't even mention the Polymorph line), though he gets SOME points for even considering to admit that maybe some of the overpoweredness of spells were due to mistakes and oversight. Having said that, he still has no clue what is overpowered and what isn't. And there, he says something that makes the next link awful, that whatever he creates for Arcana Unearthed is meant to have backwards compatibility with 3e and other d20 systems.

Third Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary19). Just look at that spell template. Just look at it. Look at the unearthly brokenness of that (keep in mind this is meant to be backwards compatible with 3e core). My goodness, I have never seen such a concentrated amount of contempt for game balance in my life. That man has no idea what he's doing, probably has no idea what a tier system is, and likely thinks a fighter can beat up a wizard because the fighter has more BAB and HP. He has no idea what the problems with 3e's mechanics are and does not care to do proper research.

Fourth Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary3). Rapid Shot. That's overpowered. Rapid. Shot. Not spells, no. Overpowered is attacking an extra time in a round. TRUE RESURRECTION?!?! Again! Not a mention of the polymorph line! OR GATE. ARGH! COOOOOOK! He makes me so frustrated. I have never met someone who believed himself to be so knowledgeable while consistently demonstrating they have no clue what they're talking about. I honestly wonder if he's really that self-deluded or if he frets daily about one day the world realising he's been fooling them for years.

So, in short, I hate that man's guts and I hope he stays far, far away from D&D.

Malachei
2012-05-02, 01:41 PM
You're talking about a lead designer of D&D 3rd edition. These are the guys that brought us the game that invigorated D&D when it was in trouble. And you sound like he has poisoned your cat.

First Link: Did they screw up? They designed an incredibly successful game system, sales soared, and, ironically, they created a life insurance for the true spirit of D&D 3rd edition in the form of the OGL. I don't think they screwed up at all.

Second Link: Harm is just an example. He uses it to illustrate his point, and back in 3.0 days, there's been a lot of jokes about one-shotting dragons with harm (thanks to 3.5 for giving us shivering touch instead). Why should he give more than one example, or why should he give your favorite example?

Third Link: I guess Monte is low-OP. I like that about him, but I agree this is an unbalanced feat. Still, how can we judge him by a feat he's designed? And how does this make him harmful to the game?

Fourth Link: Again, these are examples. Some spells are harder to fix, and rapid shot serves to illustrate his point quickly.

Note that 3.5 did not fix the most important issues of 3.0: Polymorph is as broken as ever, Shapechange is more broken, and for Haste, we have all the funny swift-action and immediate-action spells.

IMO designing 3.0 from scratch was much harder than doing the 3.5 revision, and deserves a lot of praise.

Finally, I also think it is really great and honest of him to publicly present his learning process and that game designers understand they are fallible. I like that.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-02, 01:46 PM
Yeah, lemme see what a google search will turn up (I haven't kept the links).

First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). In this link, he tries to explain 3e's failures as "rewarding system mastery." That is, he says that they did not make mistakes designing the system (as any group of humans would understandably make), but that everything that was underpowered or insultingly useless was done on purpose to trick newbies and make experienced players feel better about not taking. Instead of saying "Hey guys, we screwed up, we'll do better next time," he goes "We did not commit a single mistake. It was all on purpose, you see. All part of our clever plan." His example with Toughness is just laughable, insisting that there are situations where it's more useful than virtually anything else a fighter could take. In the specific case he mentions, since the fighter will not be around for long, it's actually even MORE important to ensure that you pick better feats, as you won't have time to play your character for long, so you should get as many "flashy" feats as you can (like Power Attack, Improved Trip and so on).

Toughness is actually quite good on a first level elf wizard, his precise example. If retraining is allowed, that's a pretty solid early pick. Most mortality for wizards is early on, when spells are limited, people can still deal hp damage to you reasonably easily, and you have jack all for wealth to fix anything.

As he says, if you're playing a one shot with 1st level chars, toughness is a quite solid choice. There is no error here.


Second Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary4). He has no idea what he's talking about (look at the spells he points out as overpowered: Harm is just broken, huh? HARM?! Goodness mine, he doesn't even mention the Polymorph line), though he gets SOME points for even considering to admit that maybe some of the overpoweredness of spells were due to mistakes and oversight. Having said that, he still has no clue what is overpowered and what isn't. And there, he says something that makes the next link awful, that whatever he creates for Arcana Unearthed is meant to have backwards compatibility with 3e and other d20 systems.

It's not a perfect, complete analysis, but it's not meant to be. Haste IS a fantastic third level spell, and yeah, basically every wizard does have Mage Armor. Harm is probably not as good as he thinks, true, but it's not actually a bad spell. In fact, it's terrific in combination with sonic snap.

It's not quite perfect, but it's a decent acknowledgement of some of the flaws in the magic system.


Third Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary19). Just look at that spell template. Just look at it. Look at the unearthly brokenness of that (keep in mind this is meant to be backwards compatible with 3e core). My goodness, I have never seen such a concentrated amount of contempt for game balance in my life. That man has no idea what he's doing, probably has no idea what a tier system is, and likely thinks a fighter can beat up a wizard because the fighter has more BAB and HP. He has no idea what the problems with 3e's mechanics are and does not care to do proper research.

Well, metamagics mostly are not worth using without reducers, and with reducers, sometimes become ridiculous. Single target blasting spells are...not usually the most powerful of spells. Adding a 1 turn save or stun to them is useful, but not utterly insane.

Again, I don't think it's perfect, but it might be better than the metamagic system.


Fourth Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary3). Rapid Shot. That's overpowered. Rapid. Shot. Not spells, no. Overpowered is attacking an extra time in a round. TRUE RESURRECTION?!?! Again! Not a mention of the polymorph line! OR GATE. ARGH! COOOOOOK! He makes me so frustrated. I have never met someone who believed himself to be so knowledgeable while consistently demonstrating they have no clue what they're talking about. I honestly wonder if he's really that self-deluded or if he frets daily about one day the world realising he's been fooling them for years.

Overpowered is probably not accurate because of other limitations in archery...but yes, extra attacks ARE powerful, and it kind of is a feat tax for that style of combat. Identifying it as problematic is fair. Honestly, if a similar feat existed for melee, it would be a viable alternative to pounce, and would still be quite potent. Look at snap kick, which has an annoying prereq, has the exact same negative, and has poor damage. It's still considered solid.

Things that add attacks or otherwise alter the action economy are quite powerful, and it's something that they didn't address sufficiently in 3.5. Not perfect, but I wouldn't say he's wildly out of touch.


So, in short, I hate that man's guts and I hope he stays far, far away from D&D.

I suspect you might be overreacting just a bit. I'm a bit curious as to why he left, and as to what he'll be doing next. I'm not going to jump to conclusions yet...I just don't have enough info to honestly say what this means.

Jeraa
2012-05-02, 01:51 PM
3.0 Harm was broken. And I assume he was meaning 3.0 Harm, as he is talking about Arcana Unearthed. as opposed to Arcana Evolved. Arcana Unearthed came out before 3.5 did, so Monte was talking about 3.0 Harm.


Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points.

It didn't matter how many hit points you had, fail the fortitude save, and you only have 1-4 left.

Ranos
2012-05-02, 01:53 PM
Take the man's love of wizards, his unapologetically bringing about caster edition, and this article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430). If I had to guess at the reasons for his departure, I wouldn't look very far.

Malachei
2012-05-02, 02:02 PM
3.0 Harm was broken. And I assume he was meaning 3.0 Harm, as he is talking about Arcana Unearthed. as opposed to Arcana Evolved. Arcana Unearthed came out before 3.5 did, so Monte was talking about 3.0 Harm.



It didn't matter how many hit points you had, fail the fortitude save, and you only have 1-4 left.

Of course he is talking about 3.0 Harm.

Which, by the way, had no save.

Therefore it was the ideal dragon killer (often low touch AC, compared to standard AC). And hence, a very good example he gave.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-02, 02:06 PM
3.0 Harm was broken. And I assume he was meaning 3.0 Harm, as he is talking about Arcana Unearthed. as opposed to Arcana Evolved. Arcana Unearthed came out before 3.5 did, so Monte was talking about 3.0 Harm.



It didn't matter how many hit points you had, fail the fortitude save, and you only have 1-4 left.

Yknow, that's an excellent point...I was thinking of 3.5 harm(as you can probably tell by my sonic snap reference), which is situationally quite good, but not quite that good. 3.0 harm was in fact quite broken, and an excellent example.

It's a perfectly apt example for him to use. 3.0 haste becomes an even better example, as well.

Jeraa
2012-05-02, 02:07 PM
Of course he is talking about 3.0 Harm.

Which, by the way, had no save.

Therefore it was the ideal dragon killer (often low touch AC, compared to standard AC). And hence, a very good example he gave.

My 3.0 PHB (says its a 2nd printing, September 2000) says Harm does have a save. Fortitude negates.

The 3.0 SRD I have does save there is no save, however. As does my 1st printing 3.0 PHB. So it was errated.

Malachei
2012-05-02, 02:12 PM
Take the man's love of wizards, his unapologetically bringing about caster edition, and this article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430). If I had to guess at the reasons for his departure, I wouldn't look very far.

From the article you linked (thanks!):


Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.


= Iron Heart Suuuurge! :smallbiggrin:


A few comments on that paragraph:

Yes, this may be the actual disagreement, because you do not have to be a fan of wizards to see that creating this kind of balance is a challenge.
If Mike Mearls means to completely balance the fighter and the wizard (i.e. also in terms of versatilty), this will change the D&D game in really profound ways. I'm not looking for overpowering wizards, but if I get handcrafted artificial balance-fu, I might pass on 5e.
It seems the fighter may look more like the warblade?

Ranos
2012-05-02, 02:23 PM
If Mike Mearls means to completely balance the fighter and the wizard (i.e. also in terms of versatilty), this will change the D&D game in really profound ways. I'm not looking for overpowering wizards, but if I get handcrafted artificial balance-fu, I might pass on 5e.
2E had pretty good balance going between casters and noncasters. A wizard with prep-time and foreknowledge was always an extremely dangerous enemy, but in a straight fight the fighter was a juggernaut of destruction. Mostly because of long casting times, no easy concentration checks, and a different saving throw system that favored the noncaster classes a lot.
I could see some of those limitations to casters coming back for 5E without fundamentally changing D&D.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 02:27 PM
You're talking about a lead designer of D&D 3rd edition. These are the guys that brought us the game that invigorated D&D when it was in trouble. And you sound like he has poisoned your cat.

I do not think someone deserves respect simply because they created something I enjoyed. I gave them my money, that's a fair trade. I do not owe them any more than that. I respect someone because of how they are, not because of what they do.


First Link: Did they screw up? They designed an incredibly successful game system, sales soared, and, ironically, they created a life insurance for the true spirit of D&D 3rd edition in the form of the OGL. I don't think they screwed up at all.

They made mistakes. They are human. Admitting and owning up to them is what makes me respect someone. Someone who acts as if they are immune to mistakes instantly gets my suspicion, distrust and loses my respect.


Second Link: Harm is just an example. He uses it to illustrate his point, and back in 3.0 days, there's been a lot of jokes about one-shotting dragons with harm (thanks to 3.5 for giving us shivering touch instead). Why should he give more than one example, or why should he give your favorite example?

3.0e Harm? Yes, that's broken. I assumed he meant 3.5e Harm, which pales in comparison to Planar Ally or Polymorph (or Baleful Polymorph). Yes, 3.0e Harm was broken. 3.0 Haste as well. Having said that, the fact that he doesn't seem to recognise that Calling and polymorphing effects deserve mention in the "broken spells" category indicates that he clearly has no idea what's broken or not. I would not be surprised if he had been told by fellow designers that Harm and Haste were overpowered, rather than realising that on his own.


Third Link: I guess Monte is low-OP. I like that about him, but I agree this is an unbalanced feat. Still, how can we judge him by a feat he's designed? And how does this make him harmful to the game?

See below for my reply to Tyndmyr.


Fourth Link: Again, these are examples. Some spells are harder to fix, and rapid shot serves to illustrate his point quickly.

I'm not judging him about the feat. I'm judging that he's complaining about an unbalanced feat for non-spellcasters when he fails to realise that non-spellcaster balance is meaningless when we take spellcasting into consideration. See below, he's complaining about catching a flu while devoured by flesh-eating bacteria.


Note that 3.5 did not fix the most important issues of 3.0: Polymorph is as broken as ever, Shapechange is more broken, and for Haste, we have all the funny swift-action and immediate-action spells.

This is exactly my point. Polymorph was broken back in 3.0 too, as were all Calling spells. The fact that he seems unaware of this means he is not as knowledgeable about game balance as he thinks he is.


IMO designing 3.0 from scratch was much harder than doing the 3.5 revision, and deserves a lot of praise.

Finally, I also think it is really great and honest of him to publicly present his learning process and that game designers understand they are fallible. I like that.

No, that's the thing. He does not understand that they are fallible. He sweeps his own mistakes under the rug when he has to own up to them and only brings them up when he's trying to sell his own system. He's basically trying to sell you Arcana Unearthed by saying he's solved all the problems with 3e and keeping all the things you like. He's not documenting his learning process, he's presenting teasers of his system to get sales.


Toughness is actually quite good on a first level elf wizard, his precise example. If retraining is allowed, that's a pretty solid early pick. Most mortality for wizards is early on, when spells are limited, people can still deal hp damage to you reasonably easily, and you have jack all for wealth to fix anything.

As he says, if you're playing a one shot with 1st level chars, toughness is a quite solid choice. There is no error here.

No. No. No, just no. No. There are immensely better feats to pick at first level, for any class. Even if we restrict things to core only and even if it's a one-shot adventure. Off the top of my head, there is Spell Focus (and if the character is a human instead of an elf, Spell Focus(Conjuration) and Augment Summoning), Improved Counterspelling (if the adventure is caster-heavy), Improved Familiar (if they expect to reach 3rd level soonish, the wizard can put off binding a familiar until that time, or just dismiss his current one and rebind it at that time, freeing up his 3rd level feat for something more useful), Dodge (awful feat, but a +1 to AC is statistically better than a +3 to HP) and oh right, Improved Initiative. And this is assuming the wizard will remain a pure wizard. If the character is planning on gishing, acquiring combat feats early is, in many cases, quite vital.


It's not a perfect, complete analysis, but it's not meant to be. Haste IS a fantastic third level spell, and yeah, basically every wizard does have Mage Armor. Harm is probably not as good as he thinks, true, but it's not actually a bad spell. In fact, it's terrific in combination with sonic snap.

It's not quite perfect, but it's a decent acknowledgement of some of the flaws in the magic system.

The fact that he values Invisibility over Web or Glitterdust as the king of 2nd level spells is ridiculous. Grease, a 1st level spell, is better than Invisibility. And if he hadn't said "attack spell" when he was lauding the virtues of Magic Missile, he would've been dead wrong. Yes, Magic Missile is the best 1st level attack spell in core. It is not, however, better than Grease.


Well, metamagics mostly are not worth using without reducers, and with reducers, sometimes become ridiculous. Single target blasting spells are...not usually the most powerful of spells. Adding a 1 turn save or stun to them is useful, but not utterly insane.

Again, I don't think it's perfect, but it might be better than the metamagic system.

That's hilarious. No, seriously, it really is. Any decent spellcaster worth his salt can pump his DC sky high, guaranteeing any enemy who gets caught by the spell gets stunned. So what if it costs 30 GP per casting? Take Energy Admixture [Electricity] for a spell like Fireball or just drop a Scintillating Sphere (or a cleverly aimed Lightning Bolt, if we're doing core only) and voilà, an entire group of enemies stunned for two rounds (and damaged, on top of that). Any decent team needs only three rounds to mop up an enemy cluster. It's got all the brokenness of Web and Grease without any of its mild inconveniences (like having to pelt the enemies from a distance or enemies) and the extra damage is the cherry on top.


Overpowered is probably not accurate because of other limitations in archery...but yes, extra attacks ARE powerful, and it kind of is a feat tax for that style of combat. Identifying it as problematic is fair. Honestly, if a similar feat existed for melee, it would be a viable alternative to pounce, and would still be quite potent. Look at snap kick, which has an annoying prereq, has the exact same negative, and has poor damage. It's still considered solid.

Things that add attacks or otherwise alter the action economy are quite powerful, and it's something that they didn't address sufficiently in 3.5. Not perfect, but I wouldn't say he's wildly out of touch.

The problem here is that, while he might be talking with some manner of sense about the specific topic he's discussing (non-spellcasters and feats), he is ignoring the bloated, cankerous tumour in 3e's balance, which is spells. Him talking about the brokenness of Rapid Shot while blissfully unaware of the abominations in the Spells section of the PHB is much like a patient complaining about catching a flu while a flesh-eating bacteria eats him alive.


I suspect you might be overreacting just a bit. I'm a bit curious as to why he left, and as to what he'll be doing next. I'm not going to jump to conclusions yet...I just don't have enough info to honestly say what this means.

Of course I'm over-reacting. The man is largely irrelevant, especially now that he's gone. The anger is tongue-in-cheek (though perhaps that wasn't transmitted well over the written medium).

Tyndmyr
2012-05-02, 03:12 PM
No. No. No, just no. No. There are immensely better feats to pick at first level, for any class. Even if we restrict things to core only and even if it's a one-shot adventure. Off the top of my head, there is Spell Focus (and if the character is a human instead of an elf, Spell Focus(Conjuration) and Augment Summoning), Improved Counterspelling (if the adventure is caster-heavy), Improved Familiar (if they expect to reach 3rd level soonish, the wizard can put off binding a familiar until that time, or just dismiss his current one and rebind it at that time, freeing up his 3rd level feat for something more useful), Dodge (awful feat, but a +1 to AC is statistically better than a +3 to HP) and oh right, Improved Initiative. And this is assuming the wizard will remain a pure wizard. If the character is planning on gishing, acquiring combat feats early is, in many cases, quite vital.

As a trivial example, please show how +1 AC is better than +3 to HP at first level. As per Monte Cook's example, use an elf wizard with 3 hp normally.

Then, remember that dodge only works against ONE person, and is situationally not helping at all. No, dodge is a vastly worse feat.

As for your improved familiar bit...he was talking about a one shot at level 1. Level 3 will never happen, and is irrelevant. Improved Familiar is not relevant to the example he proposed and which you criticized. Summoning is terrible at level one, so Augment summoning also is.

At level one, your spell loadout is minimal. Counterspelling is not yet a very viable tactic.

Spell Focus is reasonable, but your loadout of spells is, again, low. You will probably spend the majority of your combat rounds doing something other than casting.

If you are level one, have no hp, and are playing a one shot, toughness is reasonable.


The fact that he values Invisibility over Web or Glitterdust as the king of 2nd level spells is ridiculous. Grease, a 1st level spell, is better than Invisibility.

Invisibility is a great spell. It's arguably a lot better than those two. For one thing, it has much greater out of combat potential.


And if he hadn't said "attack spell" when he was lauding the virtues of Magic Missile, he would've been dead wrong. Yes, Magic Missile is the best 1st level attack spell in core. It is not, however, better than Grease.

So...he's correct.


That's hilarious. No, seriously, it really is. Any decent spellcaster worth his salt can pump his DC sky high, guaranteeing any enemy who gets caught by the spell gets stunned. So what if it costs 30 GP per casting? Take Energy Admixture [Electricity] for a spell like Fireball or just drop a Scintillating Sphere (or a cleverly aimed Lightning Bolt, if we're doing core only) and voilà, an entire group of enemies stunned for two rounds (and damaged, on top of that). Any decent team needs only three rounds to mop up an enemy cluster. It's got all the brokenness of Web and Grease without any of its mild inconveniences (like having to pelt the enemies from a distance or enemies) and the extra damage is the cherry on top.

I agree that the 30 gp is irrelevant. The point is that the metamagic system just doesn't work well. The templates idea might be a bit better, if still not perfect. Note also that he says "target" in the template, implying that it's a single target effect.

Also note that it replaces metamagics, so using metamagics to break it is kind of...wrong.


The problem here is that, while he might be talking with some manner of sense about the specific topic he's discussing (non-spellcasters and feats), he is ignoring the bloated, cankerous tumour in 3e's balance, which is spells. Him talking about the brokenness of Rapid Shot while blissfully unaware of the abominations in the Spells section of the PHB is much like a patient complaining about catching a flu while a flesh-eating bacteria eats him alive.

He's not talking about that. He's using an example that is correct, and that easily illustrates what he wants to talk about. You want an entirely different topic. There's no particular reason why he should only talk about the thing you happen to feel is most important.

Ravens_cry
2012-05-02, 03:15 PM
It didn't matter how many hit points you had, fail the fortitude save, and you only have 1-4 left.
Correction: There wasn't even a save, only SR could save your hide.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-02, 03:56 PM
In the "First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)" that Shadowknight12 gave us, to me the damning bit is how Cook defends the 3.x system with the Timmy Card concept and gets it wrong.

The Magic team is metaphorically (and maybe literally?) right across the hall from him. This is not someone from Fantasy Flight or White Wolf who doesn't work with those concepts. It's not someone from outside the industry -- it's a concept used by his own company and he still didn't understand it. They even have links (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) on their website which explain the idea in detail (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).

Trap options are, in my eyes, a terrible way to design a game. But y'know what, I can see having a reasonable debate with someone on the subject who disagrees with me.

But claiming you intentionally built trap options into your game in accordance with a design policy from an entirely different kind of game when the design policy in question is nothing like what you think it is even though it was devised and codified by your coworkers, all as an excuse for why your game is not balanced?

In the immortal words of the internet, "What is this I don't even."

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 03:58 PM
As a trivial example, please show how +1 AC is better than +3 to HP at first level. As per Monte Cook's example, use an elf wizard with 3 hp normally.

Then, remember that dodge only works against ONE person, and is situationally not helping at all. No, dodge is a vastly worse feat.

If you're only attacked by a single person per round (and let's face it, at level 1, playing an elf wizard, no feat will save you if you're being gangbanged), then this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/249500-d20-math-ac-hit-diminishing-returns.html) helps explain how AC increases your effective HP. Toughness is better than a +1 to AC only if the wizard's AC is very low. If the wizard pumps his AC (as he should), a +1 increase to AC ends up giving him a very large increase in his Effective HP, far outclassing Toughness even at level 1. I am not saying Dodge is a good feat. It is an awful, awful feat. But Toughness is (slightly) worse.


As for your improved familiar bit...he was talking about a one shot at level 1. Level 3 will never happen, and is irrelevant. Improved Familiar is not relevant to the example he proposed and which you criticized. Summoning is terrible at level one, so Augment summoning also is.

There are various ways to interpret "One shot adventure." It's not unreasonable a one-shot adventure might take characters from level 1 to level 3, 4 or 5 by time it ends, especially with generous XP rewards. Having said that, summoning, even if it lasts only for a round, can be made to work precisely because of Augment Summoning, giving it a +2 to attack and damage rolls, which is enough to make that one full-attack it can do before it disappears count in a battle. It's still a poor choice, but far better than Toughness.


At level one, your spell loadout is minimal. Counterspelling is not yet a very viable tactic.

A specialist with a high intelligence begs to differ. And besides, Counterspelling is not about quantity, it's about quality. You are not supposed to counterspell every spell you see, you're supposed to counterspell the spells that could cause a TPK or neutralise a bad guy's main shtick, such as an adventure that hinges on a spellcaster summoning a monster or raising undead. Counterspell that one single spell and suddenly you've made the encounter a whole lot easier.


Spell Focus is reasonable, but your loadout of spells is, again, low. You will probably spend the majority of your combat rounds doing something other than casting.

Yes, but if you specialise in save or suck spells, Spell Focus is invaluable. Who cares if you only cast one spell per encounter and then spend the rest of it shooting a crossbow? The spell you cast, thanks to Spell Focus, kept the enemies away from you (Grease, for example) and was far better than Toughness at keeping you alive.


If you are level one, have no hp, and are playing a one shot, toughness is reasonable.

As I said above, only if you are being silly and keeping your AC low. And if that's the case, then yes, you're going to get hit a lot, so by all means, take Toughness.


Invisibility is a great spell. It's arguably a lot better than those two. For one thing, it has much greater out of combat potential.

Out of combat? Debatable. In some situations (such as infiltrating, escaping or spying) then yes, you may be right. In combat? Invisibility is next to useless except as an emergency escaping mechanism (or if your wizard is going to be a rogue gish).


I agree that the 30 gp is irrelevant. The point is that the metamagic system just doesn't work well. The templates idea might be a bit better, if still not perfect. Note also that he says "target" in the template, implying that it's a single target effect.

Also note that it replaces metamagics, so using metamagics to break it is kind of...wrong.

"Implies" means nothing. As written, I can use that spell to lockdown entire groups of mooks with a damaging AOE spell. And even if we make it strictly single-target, it's still an awful idea, because single-target damage spells typically have high-damage outputs to compensate for the lack of spread and may have secondary effects (like the Orb line), so yeah, it's even worse. It can completely lock down big creatures meant to be encountered alone (like dragons, bigger undead and outsiders and the like), reducing them to a cakewalk. It doesn't matter if the metamagic system was wrong. This is just poor design. If you tell me that A) He explicitly intends no backwards compatibility with 3e (something that's automatically false because of his own intentions) and B) He has rebalanced the entire magic system in his new setting, then it's still too powerful, but at least it's not hilariously overpowered as it is if you combine it with 3e's spell list.


He's not talking about that. He's using an example that is correct, and that easily illustrates what he wants to talk about. You want an entirely different topic. There's no particular reason why he should only talk about the thing you happen to feel is most important.

He's talking about balance in general, first and foremost. That's what makes it so egregious. If he wasn't talking about balance in general (as he says it himself, "balance in the core rules"), then I wouldn't be up in arms about it. He can say "Yeah, magic is unbalanced, we all know that, but I'm here to talk about balance within the non-spellcaster options" and that would mean he knows what he's talking about. As is, he comes off as hilariously clueless.

Jeraa
2012-05-02, 05:48 PM
Correction: There wasn't even a save, only SR could save your hide.

Correcting your correction: While in the first printing of the book (and the SRD) there was no save, in the 2nd printing of the 3.0 PHB there was a save.

Ravens_cry
2012-05-02, 06:30 PM
Correcting your correction: While in the first printing of the book (and the SRD) there was no save, in the 2nd printing of the 3.0 PHB there was a save.
Well, I guess I got some first printings then.
This was also in earlier editions, but going up to cast a melee range spell was even more risky.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-05-02, 07:21 PM
In the "First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)" that Shadowknight12 gave us, to me the damning bit is how Cook defends the 3.x system with the Timmy Card concept and gets it wrong.

The Magic team is metaphorically (and maybe literally?) right across the hall from him. This is not someone from Fantasy Flight or White Wolf who doesn't work with those concepts. It's not someone from outside the industry -- it's a concept used by his own company and he still didn't understand it. They even have links (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) on their website which explain the idea in detail (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).

Trap options are, in my eyes, a terrible way to design a game. But y'know what, I can see having a reasonable debate with someone on the subject who disagrees with me.

But claiming you intentionally built trap options into your game in accordance with a design policy from an entirely different kind of game when the design policy in question is nothing like what you think it is even though it was devised and codified by your coworkers, all as an excuse for why your game is not balanced?

In the immortal words of the internet, "What is this I don't even."

Actually, pretty much this exact sentiment was expressed in a 2002 Magic article by Rosewater himself (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5):


The next reason “bad” cards exist goes to the heart of what makes a trading card game tick. Trading card games, and Magic in particular, are very much about discovery. When you play Uno, for example, you don’t have to know that “Draw Four” is better than a blue 6. All the cards are shuffled together and you play what you get. But in Magic, you pick and choose which cards you use. That makes the ability to differentiate between cards very important. As you grow as a player, you get better at determining a card’s potential. This ongoing challenge is an important part of what keeps Magic fresh.

The best way to examine this quality is to think back to your own Magic history. Can you remember key times where you finally “got” some concept? When all of a sudden things just clicked and you realized why a card or a series of cards were better or worse than you originally thought? That is part of the thrill of playing Magic and R&D purposefully slopes the cards to allow a constant sense of discovery.



Still terrible game design, and he still misapplied the concept of Timmy cards, but I don't think he would have gotten any help by talking to the MtG guys.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-02, 08:40 PM
Hey, I remember that article! I really liked it. Rosewater has some really good stuff to say.

I would like to think that, had Cook asked Rosewater to explain the Timmy Card vibe, Rosewater would have beaten the definition into Cook's brain. It's his baby, after all, and watching Cook misapply it cannot have been fun. That, and it shows Cook as having no clue what he's talking about, which is just bad for the company.

The difference, though, between Magic having "bad cards" and 3.x having "trap options" has a lot to do with the nature of the two games. Rosewater offers seven justifications for bad cards (spoiler'd for length):

All the Cards Cannot Be Good
This is a fair point for any system. Any list of abilities (cards, classes, spells, feats, whatever) will naturally shake out a power structure. Some will be better, some will be worse. The ones near the bottom of the list will be "bad."


Different Cards Appeal to Different Players
This is also a fair point. Back when I was with Games Workshop, folks would ask me why [x] unit was even in the game. Sometimes, the answer really was "it's not for you."


Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery
Still fair points for any diverse system. The more options you have, the more opportunities you have to find new ways to use them. Some of those only look like bad options until you find ways to make them good options.


Power Levels are Relative
This is where Magic and D&D3.x design theory start to diverge; the point here is that some bad cards combine really well with other cards to become game-winners. Cards that are "hard to instantly analyze" make for some surprising options that your opponent won't see coming. But D&D doesn't have an opponent. So while a diverse array of cards (or feats) does create opportunities to make interesting combination that aren't readily apparent, the concept of being unclear about the use of certain spells or abilities doesn't translate well to a cooperative game. It also doesn't translate well since your ability to change your deck is much easier than your ability to change your character.


Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player
This relies heavily on the random nature of Magic. You get random cards from packs, and thanks to the shuffling vibe you get random cards in play. Rather, you randomly get specific cards, but not always when you want them or in the combinations necessary for them to function. A skilled Magic player both chooses better cards ahead of time and learns to make do with only a random assortment of his total potential options. D&D, however, lacks this random factor which encourages this mindset. And again, the cooperative nature of the game comes into play. The "more skilled player" is rewarded not by his teammates choosing trap-options, and the DM doesn't win by accidentally killing the party.


People Like Finding "Hidden Gems"
“R&D cannot make good cards that seem bad without making bad cards that are actually bad.” This is unnecessary in a roleplaying game. It may have a home in a collectible card game, but not a roleplaying game.


R&D is Only Human
This should have been Cook's line. "Hey, we screwed up." But it wasn't. It leaves us caught between the possibility that Cook and his crew are super secret design geniuses who lie to their playerbase or that they're just bad and also liars. That is not the kind of choice you want to present your customers with.

Short version:
#1) Magic is a very random game: you get random cards in your packs and you shuffle your decks during play. D&D is not. You have very clear information when building your character and when actually playing him. You know all your spells and your abilities. You can use any of them at any time (barring some weird temporary ailment). Skill-cards help keep Magic from being too random. In D&D, the dice serve as the means by which randomness is introduced -- character design is the reliable bit!

#2) D&D is a cooperative, not competitive, game. Trap options in D&D hurt the entire party. A variety of skill-cards helps reward Magic players who master the system in direct opposition against a hostile player.

Me, I think Rosewater would have been able to see how something that works in one type of game isn't necessarily good in another type of game. He strikes me as having a good head on his shoulders.

I'm gonna go back and reread the Rosewater archives. Man knows his stuff.

Malachei
2012-05-03, 08:20 AM
He's talking about balance in general, first and foremost. That's what makes it so egregious. If he wasn't talking about balance in general (as he says it himself, "balance in the core rules"), then I wouldn't be up in arms about it. He can say "Yeah, magic is unbalanced, we all know that, but I'm here to talk about balance within the non-spellcaster options" and that would mean he knows what he's talking about. As is, he comes off as hilariously clueless.

So he doesn't argue they way you think he should, and that makes him silly?

I was quite surprised to see this thread derail. I didn't expect gamers to have hard feelings towards a particular game designer, especially since 3rd edition has such a huge fan base, and, like it or not, as a 3.X player, you can play the game in part thanks to Monte Cook.

But as someone on another board put it:


True WotC Fan on Monte joining: "Yay, Monte Cook, the legend, is on the team! This bodes so well for the game! Shows how open to new ideas WotC is!"

True WotC Fan on Monte leaving: "Meh, 3ed was a mess, Monte's kind of cranky, so glad to see him go!"

And back to the original questions:


How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?
How do you think this will affect its commercial success?
Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?

Fatebreaker
2012-05-03, 10:15 AM
I was quite surprised to see this thread derail. I didn't expect gamers to have hard feelings towards a particular game designer, especially since 3rd edition has such a huge fan base, and, like it or not, as a 3.X player, you can play the game in part thanks to Monte Cook.

3.x wasn't my first trip to the rodeo -- I don't owe the man anything.

I also don't believe that 3.x being a financial success excuses Cook's poor decisions. We can and should hold people accountable; this holds true even when examining the actions of individuals within a group.

A hockey team can still win even if their goalie is terrible.


And back to the original questions:


How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?
How do you think this will affect its commercial success?
Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?


#1) I don't believe we've seen enough hard evidence of what D&D Next actually is to successfully make that prediction. How far along is it? How easy will it be to change? How fundamental was Cook's input? For all we know, the reason they let him go was that they realized he wasn't contributing anything positive to the team or the game -- so maybe nothing will change because he had given them nothing to later change. Or maybe they realized that he was putting all these negative elements into the game, so not they need to work overtime to undo the damage. Honestly, I've heard a lot of claims and not a lot of clarity on the hard rules of 5e, so I'm in no position to judge.

#2) I honestly don't believe Cook's involvement or lack thereof is going to be a big deal, financially. People are first and foremost going to play games that they can play with their friends (or, if they don't have friends, at least other people). If a group doesn't go 5e, then there's only so far the 5e-enthusiasts will go down that rabbit hole. And a lot of folks simply don't pay attention to individuals within a team -- for them, D&D is by Wizards of the Coast (if they even pay attention to that), not by Monte Cook. Remember, for everyone here who pays attention to those sorts of details and combs the internet for rumors and discusses the intricacies of game design, there are all sorts of folks whose hobby consists solely of what does or doesn't happen at their own table. They'll play 5e if it's fun, not because one guy's name is or isn't somewhere in the credits.

#3) I suppose that depends on whether or not Paizo feels like Cook has anything to offer them; they seem to be doing just fine on their own.

Beleriphon
2012-05-03, 11:44 AM
How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?
How do you think this will affect its commercial success?
Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?



It probably wont, I'm still not clear on what exactly Monte Cook was working for Wizards.
I seriously doubt that, the commercial success will have more to do with convincing people they need to get this game. Wizards previously damaged their relationship with their player base, and Monte Cook isn't a marketing guy.
I wouldn't doubt that for a second, how soon is up in the air. Its quite possible that this contract with Wizards does include a clause about no soliciting other companies. I'm sure it includes an NDA. As for Pathfinder I don't know how Cook feels about Paizo in general, so its possible he might not be working for them.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 12:33 PM
So he doesn't argue they way you think he should, and that makes him silly?

Why don't you go read some of the mechanical discussions on the 3e boards? Just brush up on some of the mechanical issues 3e has. Then come back and re-read what I said before. It's not "they way I think he should." It's "he has no idea what most gamers prioritise or the conclusions regarding the game that they have reached" and it shows he is out of touch with his target audience.

I am not saying that you cannot like him. You can. I am merely telling you that if you like Monte Cook's ideals and designing choices and respect his uncompromising position, then that's great, go buy his stuff. But that's not what 5e needs. 5e needs someone who has great insight on all editions (since they are effectively trying to end the edition wars division) and, more importantly, is willing to listen to the audience. I can't stress enough how important this is. You can't have someone who is impervious to criticism and who has no drive to learn or listen to the audience working on such an important project.


I was quite surprised to see this thread derail. I didn't expect gamers to have hard feelings towards a particular game designer, especially since 3rd edition has such a huge fan base, and, like it or not, as a 3.X player, you can play the game in part thanks to Monte Cook.

How in Arborea is this a thread derail? This is a thread about Monte Cook.

Secondly, you might want to consider that maybe other people do not share the same values that you do. You seem to give someone an inexplicable amount of respect because they happened to create a product you liked. Other people think it is sufficient to give them their due payment for such a product and reserve respect for the quality of the person itself.

I think you'd save yourself some surprises in life if you kept an open mind regarding other people and how they may not think like you at all. :smallsmile:


But as someone on another board put it:


True WotC Fan on Monte joining: "Yay, Monte Cook, the legend, is on the team! This bodes so well for the game! Shows how open to new ideas WotC is!"

True WotC Fan on Monte leaving: "Meh, 3ed was a mess, Monte's kind of cranky, so glad to see him go!"

I have no idea what this means, considering I discovered D&D after 3e had been published (in fact, I discovered D&D as 4e was being launched), so I never supported Monte Cook in the first place.


And back to the original questions:


How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?
How do you think this will affect its commercial success?
Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?



It will be extremely favourable. This may actually mean that 5e has a chance at being good.
It cannot be anything but favourable for the company's commercial success.
I hope the twain shall never meet, if only because PF has already enough supporters and I do not want them combined with Cook's followers. Divide and conquer and all that.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2012-05-03, 12:55 PM
We don't have enough information to make a good judgement on what it means. If I were to guess, Monte probably wasn't allowed as much input as he would desire, and that his input conflicted with Mearls. If this is the case, then his exit won't do much, since he wasn't allowed to contribute much anyway.

I appreciate 3e for the lovely, flawed mess that it is, and I know that Monte helped create that. But as far as 5e is concerned, it's a "what have you done for me lately" situation. Given my distaste for his own supplemental material and articles, I don't think he has much more to bear.

Thialfi
2012-05-03, 02:19 PM
Since my group of 32 years has yet to depart from our 1e/2e hybrid for even one playing session, I have little valuable input on what his departure means for 5e and I have little care since it is highly unlikely that we will even consider 5e unless it includes a healthy dose of old school appeal.

What I would like to add is that my entire group absolutely loved Planescape. It is our favorite setting by far. Since Monte was heavily involved in that setting, I have a hard time believing his departure will be anything but a negative.

I have actually read enough of the newer editions to get a feel for what they are about. I actually like 3e and have gotten several concepts from 3e into our game as house rules. There isn't anything that I have read about 4e that appealed to me. The setting changes are completely off putting and encounter/daily powers, rituals, skill challenges, hit points, and many other things are, what I consider, extremely inferior to the previous edition rules. If any of those things make their way to 5e, then the chances my group converts goes from slim to none.

Yora
2012-05-03, 02:42 PM
What he did write was the Planewalkers Handbook. Which I didn't read, but from what I could discover is a Planescape splatbook with variant classes, new races and so on. Which was written after the setting had been on the market for two years and would be the typ of things we expect from Cook: Crunch!
So yes, he did work ON Planescape, but he had no part in creating it.

Jerthanis
2012-05-03, 03:01 PM
I was quite surprised to see this thread derail. I didn't expect gamers to have hard feelings towards a particular game designer, especially since 3rd edition has such a huge fan base, and, like it or not, as a 3.X player, you can play the game in part thanks to Monte Cook.

Any illusions I had that Monte Cook had anything to do with 3rd edition's success went out the window when I read the boring, cludgy, nightmarish rules excretion that is Monte Cook's World of Darkness. I have no idea where he got his good reputation from.

I wouldn't say I have hard feelings toward him per-se, but he's the only developer I know by name and he's never done anything that I can put my finger on and say, "This is awesome, I totally agree with this" and several I can point to and say, "This is terrible, I totally disagree with this" so... hearing he left over creative differences is a neutral shift without a lot more information.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-03, 03:40 PM
If you're only attacked by a single person per round (and let's face it, at level 1, playing an elf wizard, no feat will save you if you're being gangbanged), then this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/249500-d20-math-ac-hit-diminishing-returns.html) helps explain how AC increases your effective HP. Toughness is better than a +1 to AC only if the wizard's AC is very low. If the wizard pumps his AC (as he should), a +1 increase to AC ends up giving him a very large increase in his Effective HP, far outclassing Toughness even at level 1. I am not saying Dodge is a good feat. It is an awful, awful feat. But Toughness is (slightly) worse.

That link is deeply flawed. Why? Effective hit points for AC are not static. The amount of hp saved by a missed attack varies wildly by level.

Let's say we've got a bog standard goblin attacking our mage. This is a reasonable enemy to face at level 1. He has a +3 to hit and deals 1d6 damage.

Our stock mage probably has about +2 from dex, +4 AC from mage armor. Even in this optimal case where he gets to declare his dex, this means AC 17 instead of AC 16.

With toughness, the mage gets hit 40% of the time. 1/6th of those hits take him to 0hp, the others merely reduce his hp. He can expect to take an average damage of 1.4 hp per swing.

With dodge, the mage gets hit 35% of the time. 1/6th of the hits take him to 0, 3/6ths drop him, and the rest merely reduce his hp.He can expect to take an average damage of 1.225 hp per swing.

Average swings survived:
Toughness Mage: Dies on 5th swing.
Dodge Mage: Dies on 3rd swing.

Dodge is obviously the poorer choice in this situation. If we use odds instead of averages, it's even worse. One single hit cannot drop the toughness mage, and the dodge mage drops half the time to a single hit. In addition, while crits were not calculated into the above numbers for brevity, they also make the situation worse. The dodge mage is more vulnerable to a bad crit leaving him deep in the negatives.



There are various ways to interpret "One shot adventure." It's not unreasonable a one-shot adventure might take characters from level 1 to level 3, 4 or 5 by time it ends, especially with generous XP rewards. Having said that, summoning, even if it lasts only for a round, can be made to work precisely because of Augment Summoning, giving it a +2 to attack and damage rolls, which is enough to make that one full-attack it can do before it disappears count in a battle. It's still a poor choice, but far better than Toughness.

Er, one shot adventure is traditionally regarded as one session. It is not typical for one shots to get to level 3, 4, or 5.


A specialist with a high intelligence begs to differ. And besides, Counterspelling is not about quantity, it's about quality. You are not supposed to counterspell every spell you see, you're supposed to counterspell the spells that could cause a TPK or neutralise a bad guy's main shtick, such as an adventure that hinges on a spellcaster summoning a monster or raising undead. Counterspell that one single spell and suddenly you've made the encounter a whole lot easier.

Well, if you're a specialist, then you have one less school you can have prepared. That makes imp. counterspell worse, not better. Even worse, Imp counterspell requires you to dump a spell a level higher than the one you are countering. This is a level 1 scenario. You can now counter the occasional cantrip, if it's of the right school.

That's like...deliberately unoptimizing.


Yes, but if you specialise in save or suck spells, Spell Focus is invaluable. Who cares if you only cast one spell per encounter and then spend the rest of it shooting a crossbow? The spell you cast, thanks to Spell Focus, kept the enemies away from you (Grease, for example) and was far better than Toughness at keeping you alive.

Grease is great because it's not as reliant on the DC, sir. Balance checks are balance checks regardless. Spell Focus is not unreasonable, but a 5% chance of success, while awesome, is sometimes less important than a 100% increase in hp.


Out of combat? Debatable. In some situations (such as infiltrating, escaping or spying) then yes, you may be right. In combat? Invisibility is next to useless except as an emergency escaping mechanism (or if your wizard is going to be a rogue gish).

Invisibility is fine in combat. It's great for starting combat invisible, because denying dex is fantastic for keeping those touch spells easy. Also, monsters can be expected to target visible people before invisible. It has utility for summoners or buffers, who get to just stay invisible while doing their thing.

Invisibility is a fine spell, both in and out of combat.

[qote]"Implies" means nothing. As written, I can use that spell to lockdown entire groups of mooks with a damaging AOE spell. And even if we make it strictly single-target, it's still an awful idea, because single-target damage spells typically have high-damage outputs to compensate for the lack of spread and may have secondary effects (like the Orb line), so yeah, it's even worse. It can completely lock down big creatures meant to be encountered alone (like dragons, bigger undead and outsiders and the like), reducing them to a cakewalk. It doesn't matter if the metamagic system was wrong. This is just poor design. If you tell me that A) He explicitly intends no backwards compatibility with 3e (something that's automatically false because of his own intentions) and B) He has rebalanced the entire magic system in his new setting, then it's still too powerful, but at least it's not hilariously overpowered as it is if you combine it with 3e's spell list.[/quote]

The word "target", singular, does not mean an indefinite number of targets. That's now how RAW works.

And yes, better than metamagic IS a plus, even if it's not perfect. Improvement should still be recognized, even if it isn't all the way.


He's talking about balance in general, first and foremost. That's what makes it so egregious. If he wasn't talking about balance in general (as he says it himself, "balance in the core rules"), then I wouldn't be up in arms about it. He can say "Yeah, magic is unbalanced, we all know that, but I'm here to talk about balance within the non-spellcaster options" and that would mean he knows what he's talking about. As is, he comes off as hilariously clueless.

It's an example of imbalance that is easy to digest and explain to even the newest player. Most new player do not understand the spellcaster thing. Hell, plenty of internet "experts" don't either. It gets his point across and is accurate. That's what examples are FOR.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 04:33 PM
That link is deeply flawed. Why? Effective hit points for AC are not static. The amount of hp saved by a missed attack varies wildly by level.

Let's say we've got a bog standard goblin attacking our mage. This is a reasonable enemy to face at level 1. He has a +3 to hit and deals 1d6 damage.

Our stock mage probably has about +2 from dex, +4 AC from mage armor. Even in this optimal case where he gets to declare his dex, this means AC 17 instead of AC 16.

With toughness, the mage gets hit 40% of the time. 1/6th of those hits take him to 0hp, the others merely reduce his hp. He can expect to take an average damage of 1.4 hp per swing.

With dodge, the mage gets hit 35% of the time. 1/6th of the hits take him to 0, 3/6ths drop him, and the rest merely reduce his hp.He can expect to take an average damage of 1.225 hp per swing.

Average swings survived:
Toughness Mage: Dies on 5th swing.
Dodge Mage: Dies on 3rd swing.

Dodge is obviously the poorer choice in this situation. If we use odds instead of averages, it's even worse. One single hit cannot drop the toughness mage, and the dodge mage drops half the time to a single hit. In addition, while crits were not calculated into the above numbers for brevity, they also make the situation worse. The dodge mage is more vulnerable to a bad crit leaving him deep in the negatives.

Actually no, crits sway the entire thing towards Dodge, rather than against it. A crit will kill the wizard with or without Toughness, so Dodge is far better at preventing death in that case than Toughness, because a crit with even a measly 1d6+2/x2 (anywhere from 6 to 16) will automatically kill both mages (with or without toughness) while Dodge can make the difference between a hit or a miss, or a crit confirmation and a mere attack.

And secondly, you're not realising that yeah, the toughness mage can take more damage, but the dodge mage takes less hits overall. You're assuming that they will both take the same amount of hits in combat, which is patently false.


Er, one shot adventure is traditionally regarded as one session. It is not typical for one shots to get to level 3, 4, or 5.

We're splitting hairs here, because I have seen six-hour one-shots that have taken the characters from level 1 to 5. It may not be the norm, I may grant you that, but they do exist.


Well, if you're a specialist, then you have one less school you can have prepared. That makes imp. counterspell worse, not better. Even worse, Imp counterspell requires you to dump a spell a level higher than the one you are countering. This is a level 1 scenario. You can now counter the occasional cantrip, if it's of the right school.

So what? Are you seriously going to counterspell an Evocation spell? Like I said, counterspelling is for things that turn a battle from cakewalk to challenging, things from the school of Necromancy, Transmutation and Conjuration. Or even Enchantment, if the caster is set to Charm one of the PCs to take them out of the fight. And also yeah, this is one of those things meant to be planned in advance. However, you cannot deny that a feat that enhances the character's natural capabilities (in this case, spellcasting) is better than something the character should not be doing at all (in this case, getting hit).


Grease is great because it's not as reliant on the DC, sir. Balance checks are balance checks regardless. Spell Focus is not unreasonable, but a 5% chance of success, while awesome, is sometimes less important than a 100% increase in hp.

Point taken, my bad. However, I would argue that Spell Focus is always invariably better than Toughness, if only because it's actually enhancing the character's actual class features.

Also Improved Initiative. You can't tell me that's not always a better feat.


Invisibility is fine in combat. It's great for starting combat invisible, because denying dex is fantastic for keeping those touch spells easy. Also, monsters can be expected to target visible people before invisible. It has utility for summoners or buffers, who get to just stay invisible while doing their thing.

Invisibility is a fine spell, both in and out of combat.

Starting combat invisible is useless because the rest of the party is visible, so no surprise round for you. And if you go ahead and face an encounter meant for 4 people on your own, just for the sake of a surprise round, lemme know how that goes.

Also, you are not supposed to get targetted when you're a low-level caster. That's basic spellcaster survival 101. Invisibility is useless (like Toughness) because you are not supposed to put yourself in a position where they become relevant. If you have done so, you have failed as a spellcaster.


The word "target", singular, does not mean an indefinite number of targets. That's now how RAW works.

Yet some spells do not have targets, neither one nor indefinite. Can I apply the template to them or not? The template does not say I can't.


And yes, better than metamagic IS a plus, even if it's not perfect. Improvement should still be recognized, even if it isn't all the way.

No. No, just no. In 3e, better than metamagic is bad, because spellcasters are already too good. They do not need any more nice things.


It's an example of imbalance that is easy to digest and explain to even the newest player. Most new player do not understand the spellcaster thing. Hell, plenty of internet "experts" don't either. It gets his point across and is accurate. That's what examples are FOR.

Occam's Razor. You are prescribing that man motivations he never claimed to have. You are assuming he chose that example on purpose because of the reasons you describe. There is no evidence to support your assertions. The simplest claim is that the man has no idea what he's talking about. Occam's Razor.

Beleriphon
2012-05-03, 04:35 PM
So yes, he did work ON Planescape, but he had no part in creating it.

That would be Zeb Cooke. Not relation between the two as far as I know.

Katana_Geldar
2012-05-03, 04:46 PM
I find it rather hilarious that while there's so much hate on 4e, people still complained how 'broken' 3.5 is.

Done people are never satisfied.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2012-05-03, 05:25 PM
People said 3.0 Harm was broken. People said 3.0/3.5 Polymorph is broken. Some said that Web and Grease are broken (IMO an exaggeration). No one said 3.5 as a whole is broken. The same people who dislike 4e often dislike Core 3.0/3.5, and like the mechanics developed by other writers later in 3.5's cycle. Disliking a particular designer doesn't mean people are unpleasable. If Richard Baker, Frank Brunner and Matthew Sernett were in charge of 5e all the vitriol would be coming from a much different crowd.

Malachei
2012-05-03, 05:42 PM
Why don't you go read some of the mechanical discussions on the 3e boards? Just brush up on some of the mechanical issues 3e has. Then come back and re-read what I said before.

When I read dismissive stuff like this my impression is a person is only interested in having a hostile argument. I've been playing D&D for > 25 years, I don't need statements like this.


How in Arborea is this a thread derail?

And yes, it seems you are: Now you are arguing with another person about which feats are good for a wizard. IMO, that is totally off-topic.


I find it rather hilarious that while there's so much hate on 4e, people still complained how 'broken' 3.5 is.

What I find sad is how critical people are of game designers. Gamers often react as if personally offended by the designers' work. I think game designers have a really hard time earning their living, and most that stay in the industry are idealists. For those interested, read Crapping on your dream, (http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/06/crapping-on-your-dream-freelancing-101/) by Robert J. Schwalb.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 08:33 PM
When I read dismissive stuff like this my impression is a person is only interested in having a hostile argument. I've been playing D&D for > 25 years, I don't need statements like this.

And yet you began with the dismissive statements. Or do you forget that you were the one that said "So he doesn't argue the things you'd like"? If you want people not to dismiss what you are saying, don't dismiss what they are saying in return. You like Monte Cook, I get it. You could've said "Well, I do see your points, but I still agree with everything he's saying" and everything would've been fine, but you and Tyndmyr started attacking my points and trying to prove my statements were wrong rather than having the maturity to admit that you guys liked someone who held suspicious opinions. Why is there something wrong with liking someone who has apparent flaws? Stand up for what you believe in. You like Monte Cook, warts and all, and you should be proud.


And yes, it seems you are: Now you are arguing with another person about which feats are good for a wizard. IMO, that is totally off-topic.

Fine, I'll stop. Consider that discussion ended.


What I find sad is how critical people are of game designers. Gamers often react as if personally offended by the designers' work. I think game designers have a really hard time earning their living, and most that stay in the industry are idealists. For those interested, read Crapping on your dream, (http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/06/crapping-on-your-dream-freelancing-101/) by Robert J. Schwalb.

I was offended by Cook's personality, not by his work. I can't care less about what he does (except that god-awful spell template, that needs some serious peer-review and playtesting). The fault of everything that's wrong in the game design field falls squarely over the companies' shoulders. We, as consumers, should not just "shut up and give the designers undeserved amounts of respect" because they work in horrible conditions and their field is super competitive. Should we buy more, to encourage that field to grow? Absolutely. But we shouldn't censor ourselves or go out of our way to make them feel better because they work for exploitative, tyrannical companies. After all, what change are we generating? Are we changing their work conditions? No. These people are professionals, and should be treated as such, with no more or less respect than they individually deserve.

Knaight
2012-05-03, 08:58 PM
I find it rather hilarious that while there's so much hate on 4e, people still complained how 'broken' 3.5 is.

Done people are never satisfied.

Why is uncritical adoration of something even a viewed as a good thing? For that matter, why should people have to like one of two particular games to that level, when there are easily tens of thousands of games out there? These games were all created by people, and they had to screw something up somewhere. Acknowledging that indicates a decent level of understanding, as does having criticisms for particular aspects of the work. If anything, having absolutely no complaints is indicative of a lack of critical analysis, and not analyzing things is not a behavior that should be encouraged.

For that matter, acknowledgement of flaws and satisfaction are not mutually exclusive. Satisfaction does not mean that something is believed to be perfect, merely that it is good enough, and the bar for good enough is lowered when flaws are understood and can be worked around or repaired, and raised when one sticks their head in the proverbial sand, refuses to acknowledge any problems, then directly encounters them unprepared.

holywhippet
2012-05-03, 09:48 PM
2E had pretty good balance going between casters and noncasters. A wizard with prep-time and foreknowledge was always an extremely dangerous enemy, but in a straight fight the fighter was a juggernaut of destruction. Mostly because of long casting times, no easy concentration checks, and a different saving throw system that favored the noncaster classes a lot.
I could see some of those limitations to casters coming back for 5E without fundamentally changing D&D.

That doesn't sound right. In 2nd edition you had to roll above your saving throw value for the type of attack. Fighters got the worst saving throws at low levels - literally they were worse than everyone elses on every front.

Ravens_cry
2012-05-03, 10:33 PM
That doesn't sound right. In 2nd edition you had to roll above your saving throw value for the type of attack. Fighters got the worst saving throws at low levels - literally they were worse than everyone elses on every front.
Not to mention the no saving throw, leave you at 1d4 HP Harm was *exactly* how it worked in 2nd and 1st edition. Yes, it was more risky to go for a melee spell casting back then, but still. Not to mention the spells were frightfully ambiguous, particularly in 1st edition. Illusions could either be useless or god-mode depending on DM.
And monks still sucked.

holywhippet
2012-05-03, 10:54 PM
Not to mention the no saving throw, leave you at 1d4 HP Harm was *exactly* how it worked in 2nd and 1st edition. Yes, it was more risky to go for a melee spell casting back then, but still. Not to mention the spells were frightfully ambiguous, particularly in 1st edition. Illusions could either be useless or god-mode depending on DM.
And monks still sucked.

I still remember the PC Dark Sun game Wake of the Ravager. The Ravager in question was supposed to be a freaking powerful monster which was part of an end of game boss fight. I just had one of my divine spellcasters drop harm on it then whacked it with a melee type to kill it. Easiest boss fight ever.

Ravens_cry
2012-05-03, 11:00 PM
I still remember the PC Dark Sun game Wake of the Ravager. The Ravager in question was supposed to be a freaking powerful monster which was part of an end of game boss fight. I just had one of my divine spellcasters drop harm on it then whacked it with a melee type to kill it. Easiest boss fight ever.

Really? It didn't have SR or anything like that?
I know spell resistance existed in at least some form in Ye Olde AD&D.
If anything, it was more powerful. Even 'instantaneous' effects, like a Wall of Stone, could be bypassed by SR.

JadedDM
2012-05-04, 04:55 AM
Really? It didn't have SR or anything like that?
I know spell resistance existed in at least some form in Ye Olde AD&D.
If anything, it was more powerful. Even 'instantaneous' effects, like a Wall of Stone, could be bypassed by SR.

Yes, but it's called Magic Resistance (MR) in AD&D.

Ranos
2012-05-04, 06:45 AM
That doesn't sound right. In 2nd edition you had to roll above your saving throw value for the type of attack. Fighters got the worst saving throws at low levels - literally they were worse than everyone elses on every front.
Ah yes, you're absolutely right. They only get the best saving throws at higher levels.

DigoDragon
2012-05-04, 07:22 AM
In his blog (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?montejournal), Monte Cook announced that he's left WOTC, coincidentally just as playtesting begins.

Really now? Huh, I thought he had left earlier, but okay. Perhaps he's looking to change career paths or branch out on his own now that the next D&D edition is starting it's testing phase.
I'm sure the new D&D will work just fine without him at this point, but I guess if you want to know what Mr. Cook plans to do, might have to ask him personally.

Crasical
2012-05-04, 07:30 AM
I started playing in 2e, didn't find it to my liking, skipped 3e and then came back for 3.5, enjoyed it, and recently started playing Pathfinder and 4e as well. I know very very little about Monte Cook, save for his post of 'Ivory Tower' game design and 'Timmy' effects in Dnd, which I question the validity of in the type of game I want to run and play in. I'm given to understand that he's similar to the Warhammer designer Matt Ward, as they're both very unpopular with segments of their respective fanbases, but 'opposite' in that Ward is known for for very poor fluff and solid 'crunch', while it would seem that Cook wrote very good adventures but substandard rules judgements. (EDIT: Seems like he didn't actually write the Planescape stuff that I've seen credited to him as extremely good fluff, though I've had a few people recommend his modules.)

If I believe what I've heard, then I'm not sure I really want him near Pathfinder, though. Mechanics aside, and PF has it's own share of bad editing, wonky mechanics, and broken feats, Pathfinder's lore has really grown into it's own, wonderful pulp-fiction fantasy world, something I'm not fully confident in someone with as mixed a reputation as Cook's ability to fully assimilate and work within rather than disregarding prior canon...

Malachei
2012-05-04, 08:00 AM
Really now? Huh, I thought he had left earlier, but okay. Perhaps he's looking to change career paths or branch out on his own now that the next D&D edition is starting it's testing phase.
I'm sure the new D&D will work just fine without him at this point, but I guess if you want to know what Mr. Cook plans to do, might have to ask him personally.

He left twice, actually. Once after third edition, and now. In between, he had a short interlude at Paizo, I think.


I started playing in 2e, didn't find it to my liking, skipped 3e and then came back for 3.5, enjoyed it,

After 1st edition, 2nd edition really felt a step backward, to me. But I immediately found 3.0 a wonderful improvement.

Regarding 3.0 vs. 3.5:

I remember the fighting in the fan base on whether bringing a "half-edition" was "ripping off the customer base", "too early" and so on.

One important point made in favor of 3.5 was how "broken" 3.0 was. This argument most often referred to Haste and Polymorph.

In 3.5, Polymorph is still unfixed, and instead of Haste, we have all kinds of Swift- and Immediate-Action spells.

I like 3.5 for the accessories, especially Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic, but also for the Completes. But looking at Core, IMO, 3.5 did not fix the game, and instead caused some new issues.

I am not a "fan" of Monte Cook, and in fact I would not describe myself as a fan of any game designer, but I respect them for their work. And I feel some things were better implemented in 3.0 than in 3.5. For instance, I think Monte Cook was right on the money when he said 3.5 DR triggers the "golf bag syndrome."

The Glyphstone
2012-05-04, 08:06 AM
I started playing in 2e, didn't find it to my liking, skipped 3e and then came back for 3.5, enjoyed it, and recently started playing Pathfinder and 4e as well. I know very very little about Monte Cook, save for his post of 'Ivory Tower' game design and 'Timmy' effects in Dnd, which I question the validity of in the type of game I want to run and play in. I'm given to understand that he's similar to the Warhammer designer Matt Ward, as they're both very unpopular with segments of their respective fanbases, but 'opposite' in that Ward is known for for very poor fluff and solid 'crunch', while it would seem that Cook wrote very good adventures but substandard rules judgements. (EDIT: Seems like he didn't actually write the Planescape stuff that I've seen credited to him as extremely good fluff, though I've had a few people recommend his modules.)

If I believe what I've heard, then I'm not sure I really want him near Pathfinder, though. Mechanics aside, and PF has it's own share of bad editing, wonky mechanics, and broken feats, Pathfinder's lore has really grown into it's own, wonderful pulp-fiction fantasy world, something I'm not fully confident in someone with as mixed a reputation as Cook's ability to fully assimilate and work within rather than disregarding prior canon...

Can he really be worse for the game than SKR?:smallconfused:

Tyndmyr
2012-05-04, 09:19 AM
Actually no, crits sway the entire thing towards Dodge, rather than against it. A crit will kill the wizard with or without Toughness, so Dodge is far better at preventing death in that case than Toughness, because a crit with even a measly 1d6+2/x2 (anywhere from 6 to 16) will automatically kill both mages (with or without toughness) while Dodge can make the difference between a hit or a miss, or a crit confirmation and a mere attack.

Not so. A goblin's crit is 2d6. With 3 hp, odds are exceptionally good that you are down. With 6 hp...you have almost even odds of still standing.

Also, you really should differentiate between being down and being dead. 1d6+2/x2 requires maximum damage(1/36 shot) to kill the toughness mage outright. For the dodge mage, it's much more likely, a 10/36 chance.

That's a huge skew in favor of the toughness mage.


And secondly, you're not realising that yeah, the toughness mage can take more damage, but the dodge mage takes less hits overall. You're assuming that they will both take the same amount of hits in combat, which is patently false.

No, I'm not. You can see where I calculated the odds of getting hit as a percentage.


We're splitting hairs here, because I have seen six-hour one-shots that have taken the characters from level 1 to 5. It may not be the norm, I may grant you that, but they do exist.

Yeah, but such a thing is not normal. It is not reasonable to assume he's talking about the one edge case where his example would not make sense.


So what? Are you seriously going to counterspell an Evocation spell? Like I said, counterspelling is for things that turn a battle from cakewalk to challenging, things from the school of Necromancy, Transmutation and Conjuration. Or even Enchantment, if the caster is set to Charm one of the PCs to take them out of the fight. And also yeah, this is one of those things meant to be planned in advance. However, you cannot deny that a feat that enhances the character's natural capabilities (in this case, spellcasting) is better than something the character should not be doing at all (in this case, getting hit).

Dude, at level one, you can only counter cantrips via Imp Counterspell. Cantrips are not turning the tide of anything.


Starting combat invisible is useless because the rest of the party is visible, so no surprise round for you. And if you go ahead and face an encounter meant for 4 people on your own, just for the sake of a surprise round, lemme know how that goes.

Surprise doesn't work like that. If anyone is surprised, those who are not surprised get a surprise round.

So, even if your bumbling companion is entirely unaware of what's going on, and is surprised by everyone, you still get YOUR surprise round.


Also, you are not supposed to get targetted when you're a low-level caster. That's basic spellcaster survival 101. Invisibility is useless (like Toughness) because you are not supposed to put yourself in a position where they become relevant. If you have done so, you have failed as a spellcaster.

What, you never fight intelligent opponents who have tactics like "kill the spellcaster first"?


Occam's Razor. You are prescribing that man motivations he never claimed to have. You are assuming he chose that example on purpose because of the reasons you describe. There is no evidence to support your assertions. The simplest claim is that the man has no idea what he's talking about. Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor, used in this way, is hilariously bad.

Just because something is simple does not make it correct.

Seerow
2012-05-04, 09:36 AM
Why are goblins being used as the basis for this argument?

Sure they show up, they can be relevant, but when you throw a slightly tougher level 1 appropriate challenge, all the argument goes out the window. An orc? With toughness you drop regardless, with dodge you have a better chance of the attack missing.

So against some enemies toughness is competitive enough you guys can argue about it for pages. Against other enemies, dodge is the better feat by virtue of doing anything at all. In both cases, it's a crappy feat and this argument is literally trying to determine degrees of crap.

nyarlathotep
2012-05-04, 09:42 AM
I started playing in 2e, didn't find it to my liking, skipped 3e and then came back for 3.5, enjoyed it, and recently started playing Pathfinder and 4e as well. I know very very little about Monte Cook, save for his post of 'Ivory Tower' game design and 'Timmy' effects in Dnd, which I question the validity of in the type of game I want to run and play in. I'm given to understand that he's similar to the Warhammer designer Matt Ward, as they're both very unpopular with segments of their respective fanbases, but 'opposite' in that Ward is known for for very poor fluff and solid 'crunch', while it would seem that Cook wrote very good adventures but substandard rules judgements. (EDIT: Seems like he didn't actually write the Planescape stuff that I've seen credited to him as extremely good fluff, though I've had a few people recommend his modules.)

If I believe what I've heard, then I'm not sure I really want him near Pathfinder, though. Mechanics aside, and PF has it's own share of bad editing, wonky mechanics, and broken feats, Pathfinder's lore has really grown into it's own, wonderful pulp-fiction fantasy world, something I'm not fully confident in someone with as mixed a reputation as Cook's ability to fully assimilate and work within rather than disregarding prior canon...

Matt Ward's crunch is well, good when used exclusively with other Ward made books, but does not play well with crunch made by other authors.

Morty
2012-05-04, 10:01 AM
I find it rather hilarious that while there's so much hate on 4e, people still complained how 'broken' 3.5 is.

Done people are never satisfied.

So it's somehow wrong to consider both games bad? Or acknowledge 3.5's massive flaws but consider 4e's to be more damning? (I fall into the first category myself, but that's beside the point)
More on topic, given what I know of Monte Cook, I think that him leaving can only benefit the next edition of D&D. I'm just really allergic to people who try to justify obvious blunders by saying "we totally meant it all along!".

eggs
2012-05-04, 10:07 AM
Monte Cook has an abysmal record for game balance, but he does churn out new and varied ideas. Look at the Books of X Might or Arcana Unearthed - they all make poor showings of optimization-minded rubustness, but they generally have more mechanical ambition than the typical rehash of existing game systems.

I imagine he would be useful as a design team member on that quality alone, but as the team lead, my expectations for the game as a game weren't particularly high.

Regardless, I don't know what this changes from a consumer end. I'll probably do the same thing everyone else does - wait to see the product when it's in print, and evaluate it then against other RPG options.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-04, 10:11 AM
Why are goblins being used as the basis for this argument?

Sure they show up, they can be relevant, but when you throw a slightly tougher level 1 appropriate challenge, all the argument goes out the window. An orc? With toughness you drop regardless, with dodge you have a better chance of the attack missing.

So against some enemies toughness is competitive enough you guys can argue about it for pages. Against other enemies, dodge is the better feat by virtue of doing anything at all. In both cases, it's a crappy feat and this argument is literally trying to determine degrees of crap.

Harder hitting enemies exhibit the same behavior as the crits. For instance, orcs are among the nastier things to get hit by at level 1. 2d4+4 is rather nasty, and with a +4 attack, the dodging has a bit lower of a percentage reduction in attacks than vs goblins.

Consider it this way. +1 AC means that, on a given swing, there is only a 1/20 chance that it keeps you standing vs this attack.

+3 hp gives you a 1/16 chance to stay standing, albeit at 0 hp.

Then there's the not dying factor. A max, non crit hit from an orc will put dodge mage at -9 and bleeding. Crit? Never mind. Toughness mage has several more rounds to be saved, allowing the fight to be cleaned up beforehand, and has notably higher chances of not dying instantly to a crit, as follows:

Chance of surviving orc crit:

Dodge Mage: 1 in 256....holy god.
Toughness Mage: 28 in 256. Still a bad day, but much better odds relative to the dodge mage.

So, on the far extreme, toughness also outperforms dodge at level 1.

Dimers
2012-05-04, 10:16 AM
a lot of folks simply don't pay attention to individuals within a team -- for them, D&D is by Wizards of the Coast (if they even pay attention to that), not by Monte Cook.

I adored the concepts in oWoD Mage, and Phil Brucato featured prominently among its designers. So I bought something that Phil made by himself, a modern-day fairy tale system. It was pretty but not really playable. I won't make that mistake again -- now it's clear to me that the whole design team can change things pretty dramatically even if there's a Big Name Writer on the front cover.

And the publisher isn't a good guideline either. White Wolf has put out some beauties and some garbage, as has WotC, or just about anyone else. So it's my hope that people buy (or don't buy) 5e based on reviews, rather than who's associated with it.

OP, based on the reaction we see here, I don't think Monte's move is going to hinder 5e sales, except perhaps by pushing back the release date if the remaining team has to rewrite stuff. He's not worshipped; his departure would change very few people's willingness to let the material speak for itself.

Eric Tolle
2012-05-04, 10:54 AM
How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?
How do you think this will affect its commercial success?
Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?


1. given that the playtest is starting this month, I don't think this will affect the design of D&DN much at all. the core of the system is finished, now it's revision and details.

2. Probably not have much affect at all. D&DN will rise or fall based on marketing and support.

3. Meh. Couldn't care less, since Pathfinder has practically the same balance issues as 3rd. edition.

Cicciograna
2012-05-04, 12:18 PM
I'd like to propose a new idea about the leaving of Monte.
From what I know, he was a strenuous defender of OGL (if I recall correctly, all of his production has been released under this license). What if he left not for gaming disagreements but for marketing ones? Is it possible that he argued with someone backing a more restrictive gaming license?

Tyndmyr
2012-05-04, 01:16 PM
I'd like to propose a new idea about the leaving of Monte.
From what I know, he was a strenuous defender of OGL (if I recall correctly, all of his production has been released under this license). What if he left not for gaming disagreements but for marketing ones? Is it possible that he argued with someone backing a more restrictive gaming license?

Can't say, really.

That said, all design considerations aside, the OGL was a fantastic idea for it's time, and I greatly appreciate it's existence. A return to that would be quite awesome.

Krotchrot
2012-05-04, 01:43 PM
I'd like to propose a new idea about the leaving of Monte.
From what I know, he was a strenuous defender of OGL (if I recall correctly, all of his production has been released under this license). What if he left not for gaming disagreements but for marketing ones? Is it possible that he argued with someone backing a more restrictive gaming license?

I'd like to know the same. Restricting or not allowing the OGL for D&D Next would seem like a foolish idea. I do hope that they keep the OGL, a lot of my friends like to use books from other sources.

Cicciograna
2012-05-04, 02:11 PM
Can't say, really.

That said, all design considerations aside, the OGL was a fantastic idea for it's time, and I greatly appreciate it's existence. A return to that would be quite awesome.


I'd like to know the same. Restricting or not allowing the OGL for D&D Next would seem like a foolish idea. I do hope that they keep the OGL, a lot of my friends like to use books from other sources.

That's exactly what I meant. I think that Monte Cook was adamantine in his support to the OGL, whereas some Hasbro genius had a different idea.
If this proves true...well, then putting aside any gaming issue, Monte has all my sympathy.

Ravens_cry
2012-05-04, 02:27 PM
It's so easy to have a scapegoat, but the fact is Mr. Cook has made good decisions and bad decisions, decisions we agree with and ones we don't.
Since he is a famous name in RPG design, it's quite simple to lay blame and censure on his back and his back alone.
But simple isn't always right.

Answerer
2012-05-04, 02:42 PM
That's exactly what I meant. I think that Monte Cook was adamantine in his support to the OGL, whereas some Hasbro genius had a different idea.
If this proves true...well, then putting aside any gaming issue, Monte has all my sympathy.
I dunno. I certainly like and appreciate OGL, but as a sometime 3rd-party publisher, Cook has a massive financial incentive to be in favor of the OGL. Doesn't really sound like martyrdom for the good of the game to me when it's a matter of how much he can personally profit from it.

Anyway, I tend to fall in the "good riddance" camp; he'll probably wind up with Paizo, along with the other "big-name" designer that WotC finally realized was actually a negative influence on the game.

But it would take a lot to convince me that Cook is worse than SKR.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-04, 02:52 PM
I dunno. I certainly like and appreciate OGL, but as a sometime 3rd-party publisher, Cook has a massive financial incentive to be in favor of the OGL. Doesn't really sound like martyrdom for the good of the game to me when it's a matter of how much he can personally profit from it.

Anyway, I tend to fall in the "good riddance" camp; he'll probably wind up with Paizo, along with the other "big-name" designer that WotC finally realized was actually a negative influence on the game.

But it would take a lot to convince me that Cook is worse than SKR.

These are my thoughts exactly, from beginning to end.

Talakeal
2012-05-04, 06:49 PM
...I'm given to understand that he's similar to the Warhammer designer Matt Ward, as they're both very unpopular with segments of their respective fanbases, but 'opposite' in that Ward is known for for very poor fluff and solid 'crunch'...

That's the first time I have ever heard Ward's crunch referred to in a positive light. There is some debatable stuff, like WHFB 8th and War of the Ring (which I think are horrible but I know that is arguable), but I don't think anyone who played against his 7th edition Demon army could ever think of it in anything resembling a positive light.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-04, 07:45 PM
I know very very little about Monte Cook, save for his post of 'Ivory Tower' game design and 'Timmy' effects in Dnd, which I question the validity of in the type of game I want to run and play in. I'm given to understand that he's similar to the Warhammer designer Matt Ward, as they're both very unpopular with segments of their respective fanbases, but 'opposite' in that Ward is known for for very poor fluff and solid 'crunch', while it would seem that Cook wrote very good adventures but substandard rules judgements.

Warhammer is an interesting exception, because each individual army book has a primary writer. Games Workshop played up the specific writers, too, by doing interviews and articles about the design philosophy that went into it. So the company and the product actually encourage people to know who wrote what. And even though there's a team at work, it's clear who the point man on any given project is.

You don't crack open a 3.x book and see Cook's name under the magic section, and someone else's name under the equipment section. Everyone's name is lumped together in the credits, so it's harder to pinpoint who did what. But you open up a Warhammer army book, and right up front it says, "By [Name]." If players had a clearer idea of who, exactly, gave them the good (or the bad) in their hobby, then they'd probably pay closer attention. Being able to confidently spend (or not spend) money is a strong incentive.


That's the first time I have ever heard Ward's crunch referred to in a positive light. There is some debatable stuff, like WHFB 8th and War of the Ring (which I think are horrible but I know that is arguable), but I don't think anyone who played against his 7th edition Demon army could ever think of it in anything resembling a positive light.

I can actually speak to this.

The Daemon army book was one of the (if not the) first in a new style of army books with regards to balance. Note that a hefty chunk of the army books and codices which followed it offered loads and loads of powerful options. The idea behind balance became one of, "You can choose from these powerful units, but you can't field all of them." By playing up a chosen strength, you were also incorporating a weakness by not choosing something else.

Ward's work was very well regarded in my stores. Robbin Cruddace and Phil Kelly, as well. Same design philosophy. Make every unit appealing. Presuming a 1,500 to 2,000 point battle as standard, players could pick interesting options and combinations to make a powerful force, but they couldn't pick everything. Serious strategic choices had to be made before the game even began.

Yeah, at their release, Daemons were incredible. But if you go with the Games Workshop model of releasing each army book individually, then somebody had to be first. Over time, they stopped being so mind-numbingly powerful as other armies caught up with them. Heh. It was brutal when it began, though, and no mistake.

Talakeal
2012-05-04, 09:19 PM
I can actually speak to this.

The Daemon army book was one of the (if not the) first in a new style of army books with regards to balance. Note that a hefty chunk of the army books and codices which followed it offered loads and loads of powerful options. The idea behind balance became one of, "You can choose from these powerful units, but you can't field all of them." By playing up a chosen strength, you were also incorporating a weakness by not choosing something else.

Ward's work was very well regarded in my stores. Robbin Cruddace and Phil Kelly, as well. Same design philosophy. Make every unit appealing. Presuming a 1,500 to 2,000 point battle as standard, players could pick interesting options and combinations to make a powerful force, but they couldn't pick everything. Serious strategic choices had to be made before the game even began.

Yeah, at their release, Daemons were incredible. But if you go with the Games Workshop model of releasing each army book individually, then somebody had to be first. Over time, they stopped being so mind-numbingly powerful as other armies caught up with them. Heh. It was brutal when it began, though, and no mistake.

I still don't agree. Up until the release of eighth edition two years later which majorly nerfed several aspects of the demon army list they were pretty much the undisputed kings of the game. Of the army books that came after Demons none were, in my opinion, so broken. Skaven came close, but other than a few broken options here or there none of the other army books where in the same league, especially the lackluster beast men. Hell, I don't think any of the eight edition books could beat demons, assuming the game was fought using seventh edition rules.

Amiel
2012-05-04, 09:47 PM
Apparently people have been saying he's found his true calling in Geekseekers (http://www.facebook.com/GeekSeekers).

Grinner
2012-05-04, 10:09 PM
If he could have convinced the producers to authorize an OGL SRD of D&DN, I wish he would have stayed. One of the few things D&D 3.5 had going for it was the legions of third party designers producing new material for it. Sure, most people defer to the WoTC sourcebooks, but having that additional body of material did so much for its reputation.

Think about how much homebrew you see for 3.5. Now, when was the last time you saw something for 4e?

Solaris
2012-05-05, 06:34 AM
Can he really be worse for the game than SKR?:smallconfused:

Nobody could be as bad as SKR. All I need to do for a laugh is read his site. His arguments about infravision alone, combined with the attitude... It makes me chuckle just to think about it.

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-05, 07:28 AM
Nobody could be as bad as SKR. All I need to do for a laugh is read his site. His arguments about infravision alone, combined with the attitude... It makes me chuckle just to think about it.

On the flip side, it's easy to not be as bad as SKR. SKR is getting stabbed with a rusty, serrated prison shiv stolen from a Roman ruin. Monte Cook is just a cleaned-up one that's relatively rust-free, the general point being that you have still been stabbed.

Kelson
2012-05-05, 08:01 AM
Who is SKR?

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-05, 08:02 AM
Who is SKR?

Sean K. Reynolds. These days he's one of the lead designers for Pathfinder.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-05, 08:32 AM
I still don't agree. Up until the release of eighth edition two years later which majorly nerfed several aspects of the demon army list they were pretty much the undisputed kings of the game. Of the army books that came after Demons none were, in my opinion, so broken. Skaven came close, but other than a few broken options here or there none of the other army books where in the same league, especially the lackluster beast men. Hell, I don't think any of the eight edition books could beat demons, assuming the game was fought using seventh edition rules.

Not looking to argue with you, Tal. Just offering you some insight into the evolving philosophy of the design of the game.

Oh, and vouching for folks who liked that design philosophy, since you said you hadn't heard anyone speak positively about Ward's rules. That's all well and good, and I'm sure your personal experiences back you on that, but Ward, Kelly, and Cruddace got some heavy-duty accolades back in my stores. Just depends on your approach to the game. So I'm offering that, too.

If you'd care to discuss Warhammer elsewhere, I'd be happy to, but unless we're focusing on compare/contrast between Cook's design philosophy and the GW team, I think we'll swiftly move off-topic.

Solaris
2012-05-05, 10:49 AM
Who is SKR?

He's the guy who runs this (http://www.seankreynolds.com/) site. As near as I can figure, he's never actually played D&D. It's the only way to explain his astonishing lack of understanding about the game.
I certainly have a better understanding of IR theory than him. It's the difference between someone who's simply read a bit about it and someone who uses it as part of their job. (To harken back to the infravision debates - the IR most people use to say "Oh, it'd be so horrible! And so hard to adjudicate!" is lab-grade infrared cameras, which don't work in the field. NVGs which pick up IR as well as perform light-amplification would be a much better real-world counterpart to elven infravision.)

Katana_Geldar
2012-05-05, 05:19 PM
Personally, I think Cook's leaving has to do with Mike Mearls than anything else. He was one of the main designers behind 4e, and he wasn't mentioned in Cook's farewell speech.

This also could have something to do with all the board games Wizards are bringing out, or the fact the 5e is being hurried up. We don't know.

BTW, I don't give a pair of dingoes kidneys how broken 3.5 is, that's not the issue here. I knew there was a reason I don't venture into that part of the forums.

Crow
2012-05-05, 06:52 PM
I think any time you have a fractured team, and people leaving the project due to ''Differences'', it cannot be a good sign.

Who it was means less to me than the fact that it happened to begin with. This isn't something that happens on high-performing teams. I don't want to go all gloom and doom just yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Solaris
2012-05-06, 02:08 AM
BTW, I don't give a pair of dingoes kidneys how broken 3.5 is, that's not the issue here. I knew there was a reason I don't venture into that part of the forums.

'Cause you can't handle the sheer levels of awesome that is 3.5E.


I think any time you have a fractured team, and people leaving the project due to ''Differences'', it cannot be a good sign.

Who it was means less to me than the fact that it happened to begin with. This isn't something that happens on high-performing teams. I don't want to go all gloom and doom just yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Look at it this way: Maybe Cook was bringing really crappy ideas to the table, while the rest of the designers spend a lot of time looking at what was wrong with the other games and how to improve it. He was just in the way, so they all agreed it was time for him to leave.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Katana_Geldar
2012-05-06, 07:37 AM
'Cause you can't handle the sheer levels of awesome that is 3.5E.


Maybe we don't need a 30 min rules discussion every five minutes? Maybe it's so easy for a DM to set up an encounter that won't kill your party in one round? Maybe because you can get the small details like encounters out of the way and get on with the important issues of tge game like the characters and story?

And you can play 4e for free very easy. Trot in down to your local gaming shop one Wednesday night for Encounters. If they run it, they'll give you a ore-gen and get you into a game. Sold!

ericgrau
2012-05-06, 08:09 AM
Yeah, lemme see what a google search will turn up (I haven't kept the links).

First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). In this link, he tries to explain 3e's failures as "rewarding system mastery." That is, he says that they did not make mistakes designing the system (as any group of humans would understandably make), but that everything that was underpowered or insultingly useless was done on purpose to trick newbies and make experienced players feel better about not taking. Instead of saying "Hey guys, we screwed up, we'll do better next time," he goes "We did not commit a single mistake. It was all on purpose, you see. All part of our clever plan." His example with Toughness is just laughable, insisting that there are situations where it's more useful than virtually anything else a fighter could take. In the specific case he mentions, since the fighter will not be around for long, it's actually even MORE important to ensure that you pick better feats, as you won't have time to play your character for long, so you should get as many "flashy" feats as you can (like Power Attack, Improved Trip and so on).

Second Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary4). He has no idea what he's talking about (look at the spells he points out as overpowered: Harm is just broken, huh? HARM?! Goodness mine, he doesn't even mention the Polymorph line), though he gets SOME points for even considering to admit that maybe some of the overpoweredness of spells were due to mistakes and oversight. Having said that, he still has no clue what is overpowered and what isn't. And there, he says something that makes the next link awful, that whatever he creates for Arcana Unearthed is meant to have backwards compatibility with 3e and other d20 systems.

Third Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary19). Just look at that spell template. Just look at it. Look at the unearthly brokenness of that (keep in mind this is meant to be backwards compatible with 3e core). My goodness, I have never seen such a concentrated amount of contempt for game balance in my life. That man has no idea what he's doing, probably has no idea what a tier system is, and likely thinks a fighter can beat up a wizard because the fighter has more BAB and HP. He has no idea what the problems with 3e's mechanics are and does not care to do proper research.

Fourth Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary3). Rapid Shot. That's overpowered. Rapid. Shot. Not spells, no. Overpowered is attacking an extra time in a round. TRUE RESURRECTION?!?! Again! Not a mention of the polymorph line! OR GATE. ARGH! COOOOOOK! He makes me so frustrated. I have never met someone who believed himself to be so knowledgeable while consistently demonstrating they have no clue what they're talking about. I honestly wonder if he's really that self-deluded or if he frets daily about one day the world realising he's been fooling them for years.

So, in short, I hate that man's guts and I hope he stays far, far away from D&D.

3.0 harm and haste were way OP and got nerfed hard in 3.5. That's why he keeps mentioning these same two as overpowered spells. Harm reduced any target, no matter how strong, to a set low number of hp. Harm + quickened inflict light wounds would one shot anything. Haste gave an extra standard action. Ya, you read that right: everyone got two actions per turn. There are different orders of magnitude of "overpowered" one can complain about.

1. He's talking about how the rules don't explain when it's better to use what, and he regrets it. As in a new player's guide would have been nice instead of saying "Here are the rules, you figure it out." I don't think you're reading the intent of the article that carefully.

3. Yeup, it's horribly broken. But a rebalanced version of this ended up in 4e. Most of the 4e damage spells work like this.


In his blog (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?montejournal), Monte Cook announced that he's left WOTC, coincidentally just as playtesting begins.

He'd like to avoid drama and not go into details, but explicitly expresses his respect for his co-designers.

How do you think this will affect the design of D&D Next?

How do you think this will affect its commercial success?

Do you think Monte will be working with Paizo on Pathfinder, soon?
1. I don't think it will. I mean sure he could have affected a lot of the specifics a lot but I doubt the general direction if D&D Next will change this late in development. He might have pushed for some things like #3 above, but this late it would have only affected smaller items.

2. See #1. I don't think most people pay attention to such things, so loss of his name is unlikely to have an effect. As for loss of sales due to quality issues, that depends who's left working on it.

3. Anything's possible, but I don't see a good reason for him to go to PF (EDIT @ V: Okay, that's not a bad reason). He did work on 3e but he's also been on 4e for a long time. I think he could end up anywhere, at any game or fantasy company.

TARDIS
2012-05-06, 08:40 AM
Umm... just so everybody knows Monte already worked on Pathfinder (http://paizo.com/paizo/news/v5748eaic9l76) and has produced an adventure (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Monte_Cook) for the game already.

So... yeah. He doesn't need to go to Pathfinder as much as phone up James Jacobs and ask if he needs an extra writer for a project.

Take that as you will.

Solaris
2012-05-06, 08:46 AM
Maybe we don't need a 30 min rules discussion every five minutes? Maybe it's so easy for a DM to set up an encounter that won't kill your party in one round? Maybe because you can get the small details like encounters out of the way and get on with the important issues of tge game like the characters and story?

... A thirty-minute rules discussion every five minutes? A thirty-minute rules discussion every five minutes?
Who do you play with and do they know what they're doing, even a little bit?
I don't think I've had any unimportant fights last longer than twenty-thirty minutes. Most are pretty quick affairs - it about takes longer for me to tell them the situation than it does to resolve it. My smallest party was eight characters.

Malachei
2012-05-06, 11:15 AM
Nobody could be as bad as SKR. All I need to do for a laugh is read his site. His arguments about infravision alone, combined with the attitude... It makes me chuckle just to think about it.

What is the problem arguing Darkvision is more elegant, mechanically, and more easily explained than Infravision?

You might disagree, but isn't he making a good case?

Boci
2012-05-06, 11:34 AM
Maybe we don't need a 30 min rules discussion every five minutes? Maybe it's so easy for a DM to set up an encounter that won't kill your party in one round?

In other words, you cannot handle the sheer awesomeness of 3.5. Sure its a hyperbolic way of putting it, but it rings true: if you don't know the system, then your enjoyment of it will be lessened. And yeah, 4E is easier to understand. That’s a good. The fact that every class is based off the same template? Not so universally agreed on.


Maybe because you can get the small details like encounters out of the way and get on with the important issues of tge game like the characters and story?

Then a rules heavy system may not be what you looking for, 3.5 or 4.0. I'm not saying you have to go free form, but D&D isn't good for what you just described.

Aquillion
2012-05-06, 11:49 AM
Yeah, lemme see what a google search will turn up (I haven't kept the links).

First Link (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). In this link, he tries to explain 3e's failures as "rewarding system mastery." That is, he says that they did not make mistakes designing the system (as any group of humans would understandably make), but that everything that was underpowered or insultingly useless was done on purpose to trick newbies and make experienced players feel better about not taking. Instead of saying "Hey guys, we screwed up, we'll do better next time," Er, did you read that article? Unless I'm misunderstanding it, he does say "yeah, we screwed it up, we'll do better next time." He says that he realizes that that design philosophy was a mistake:


There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about.

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

Boci
2012-05-06, 11:52 AM
Er, did you read that article? Unless I'm misunderstanding it, he does say "yeah, we screwed it up, we'll do better next time." He says that he realizes that that design philosophy was a mistake:

I think people get annoyed by the implied deliberatness of the imbalance, when mistakes and lack of proper playtesting were far more likely the cause.

Crow
2012-05-06, 12:37 PM
30 minutes of rules discussion every 5 minutes???

Your problem definitely isn't the system, lol! C'mon Katana, you know that can't be true. 3.5 has issues, but nothing that takes 30 minutes every 5. That would be like me saying that 4e enemies have so many hitpoints it takes 30 minutes to chew through all of them. Sure, sometimes it does, but not every enemy.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-06, 12:56 PM
I think people get annoyed by the implied deliberatness of the imbalance, when mistakes and lack of proper playtesting were far more likely the cause.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

If Monte Cook had said "3e is not broken" I would have dismissed him as a lunatic. He's saying "3e is broken, but we did it on purpose and now we regret it." That's within the boundaries of sanity, but still far away from the true cause: a clear lack of playtesting and an unwillingness to step back and correct mistakes, rather than building up on an already broken base (and by base, I mean core).

DeltaEmil
2012-05-06, 01:10 PM
How about we all drop the edition-warring before it really takes off?
Everyone will be happier.

kaomera
2012-05-06, 05:22 PM
30 minutes of rules discussion every 5 minutes???

Your problem definitely isn't the system, lol! C'mon Katana, you know that can't be true. 3.5 has issues, but nothing that takes 30 minutes every 5. That would be like me saying that 4e enemies have so many hitpoints it takes 30 minutes to chew through all of them. Sure, sometimes it does, but not every enemy.
I've seen both: 3e / 3.5 where nothing ever gets accomplished because a 4+ hour session consists of a room description, two declarations of spell-casting, a few lame attempts at OOC jokes, and over three hours of pointless rules arguments, as well as 4e where a fight that took 2+ hours was relatively short. I won't pretend that this is the only results you can get from either system - these are aberrations, which is a big part of why they get discussed. They stand out from the norm. But in both cases this is definitely something that the system supports. In fact I'd go so far as to say that 4e can support excessive rules-flogging if you're willing to push things (I haven't really personally seen 3.x get into the overly-long encounters the way that 4e has).

The whole ''oh, that doesn't actually happen'' argument really applies to all of the arguments against 3.x, 4e, or whatever. There are groups that get what they want out of nearly any system, but we seem to like to ignore this because we don't always get to play with the group we'd like to. In fact I'd say that good players are hard to find because they're more likely to already be in good on-going games. It's the players who cause the most problems that are the most likely to be between games when you're looking to start up a new campaign...

Seerow
2012-05-06, 05:25 PM
(I haven't really personally seen 3.x get into the overly-long encounters the way that 4e has).

I'm not sure it's possible. Any fight in 3.x that is remotely level appropriate will end with the PCs dead if they let it drag on that long without finishing it themselves (unless the combat got dragged out to 2 hours via rules arguments and the like. But I never really had a huge problem with that in D&D, it's more a problem I frequently had with Shadowrun)

Crow
2012-05-06, 05:47 PM
I'm not sure it's possible. Any fight in 3.x that is remotely level appropriate will end with the PCs dead if they let it drag on that long without finishing it themselves (unless the combat got dragged out to 2 hours via rules arguments and the like. But I never really had a huge problem with that in D&D, it's more a problem I frequently had with Shadowrun)

That illustrates the differences in gaming groups perfectly. Our encounters in Shadowrun (3e) tend to be brutally short.

Katana_Geldar
2012-05-06, 05:49 PM
I'm not sure it's possible. Any fight in 3.x that is remotely level appropriate will end with the PCs dead if they let it drag on that long without finishing it themselves (unless the combat got dragged out to 2 hours via rules arguments and the like. But I never really had a huge problem with that in D&D, it's more a problem I frequently had with Shadowrun)

This is true, it's so easy to kill your party in 3.5, or so I have heard from DMs. In 4e, setting up an Encoubters is much faster and easier, which is why when I set up a campaign, monsters are last on the list. A 4e party can safely take on (as in run away from) monsters that are five levels above them.

Seerow
2012-05-06, 05:49 PM
That illustrates the differences in gaming groups perfectly. Our encounters in Shadowrun (3e) tend to be brutally short.

I could see it being a group problem. The guy who was GMing shadowrun liked to try to keep things as 'realistic' as he could, which meant extended periods of time flipping through a poorly formatted rulebook anytime something a little more complicated than "I shoot my gun" or "I cast that spell" happened. And sometimes even those actions could prompt weird rules look-ups.

Trying to figure out if it's feasible to detinate a truck full of C4 at once, then how much damage it would do to the dragon you're ramming, followed by figuring out the blast radius and whether or not we're frying ourselves? That easily leads to 30-60 minutes of dickering around with the rules.


Edit: Oh yeah one other memorable time where we wasted about an hour looking stuff up was us jumping out of a plane and trying to use the levitate spell to cushion our landing rather than a parachute, just to be badasses who didn't need parachutes.

I believe around the same time we wound up needing to figure out the maximum falling velocity of a wyvern. I don't quite recall why this came up, but I definitely remember this leading to us finding out there is a Skydiving team that calls themselves the Wyverns, because this is where we found out Wyverns fall really frikken fast.

Spuddles
2012-05-06, 05:50 PM
I am so happy. Judging from the things I've read (things that he himself has said), that man stubbornly believes that he knows what his audience wants, is impervious to criticism and doesn't bother doing thorough research on what the problems with D&D's editions have been. This bodes well for 5e.

If he wants to compete with D&D, that's fine. I have ignored PF ever since it first appeared (and I learnt of it back in its infancy) and I can easily ignore whatever system he creates.

Core was a travesty; Malhavoc press further demonstrated that Monte Cook had no idea what he was doing as a designer.

bokodasu
2012-05-06, 08:45 PM
Apparently people have been saying he's found his true calling in Geekseekers (http://www.facebook.com/GeekSeekers).

Argh argh argh argh aaaaaaargh, you're killing me! Every time I try to say, "no, no, gamers aren't really like that," something like this comes along.

Argh.

(So I have changed my position from "completely neutral about Monte Cook" to "must hunt him down and destroy everything he's ever loved.")

Shadowknight12
2012-05-06, 08:52 PM
Argh argh argh argh aaaaaaargh, you're killing me! Every time I try to say, "no, no, gamers aren't really like that," something like this comes along.

Argh.

(So I have changed my position from "completely neutral about Monte Cook" to "must hunt him down and destroy everything he's ever loved.")

That comment made me look GeekSeekers up. I thought "it can't possibly be that bad." "Nothing Cook has done could be so dreadful." I was wrong. I was so utterly wrong. bokodasu is 100% accurate.

That is just... wow. Talk about being a sellout, Mr. Cook. I hope the "fame" and whatever they're paying you is worth perpetuating a stereotype as someone who really, really, really should know better.

See? This is what I mean when everyone has a price.

kaomera
2012-05-06, 09:21 PM
I'm not sure it's possible. Any fight in 3.x that is remotely level appropriate will end with the PCs dead if they let it drag on that long without finishing it themselves (unless the combat got dragged out to 2 hours via rules arguments and the like. But I never really had a huge problem with that in D&D, it's more a problem I frequently had with Shadowrun)
I've had long fights in 3.x, but they were definitely not long in the same way that my 4e encounters have been. In 4e a lot of time is often spent applying the rules, but there's also time spent deciding what to do, planning / strategizing, etc. In some of my 3.x games that (and sometimes just general screwing around) was the big time-sink. So I think that if I had the same situation in 3.x and in 4e then generally 4e is just going to take that much longer...

However IIRC there were at least two occasions where DR and/or regeneration / healing meant that neither side could really significantly damage the other for quite a while...

Katana_Geldar
2012-05-06, 09:45 PM
It depends on the group make up, my fiance and I DM at Encounters and run the same game every Wednesday night. It still astounds me that we have completely different experiences.

Like the fact that might fight went about 40 minutes longer than his did, or the boss stuck around longer in mine, or that I had a TPK in week two.

Solaris
2012-05-07, 06:17 AM
What is the problem arguing Darkvision is more elegant, mechanically, and more easily explained than Infravision?

You might disagree, but isn't he making a good case?

Not... really. Like I said, it's the difference between someone who thinks a Google search makes him an expert and someone who actually uses infrared surveillance as part of his job. Nearly every problem he cites isn't, it's an excuse and/or doesn't happen outside of lab-grade IR sensors (which you really probably wouldn't find in nature - or in elves). I've brought infravision back in as low-light vision with a +4 bonus to spot things warmer than their environments (such as a human body in a cool night) and not once needed some complex mechanics to model the effects of heat and infrared emissions. I mean, it's not like you need complex mechanics to model the effects of regular light, or how warm a campfire keeps you, or other things like that. At its simplest, "Warm things glow, cold things are dark". It's not even a little bit hard.

It's low-light vision that replaced infravision. Darkvision replaced ultravision. That's why dwarves have darkvision and elves have low-light vision.



This is true, it's so easy to kill your party in 3.5, or so I have heard from DMs. In 4e, setting up an Encoubters is much faster and easier, which is why when I set up a campaign, monsters are last on the list. A 4e party can safely take on (as in run away from) monsters that are five levels above them.

I've rarely encountered that problem, and I've been playing 3.x for years. The only times I've ever run into it were after making dramatic changes to the system, such as introducing firearms into a game at 1st level (FYI? Bad idea. It's rocket tag. Start 'em off at level three instead). It happened twice - once when we played Star Wars d20 Revised, and once when I started up a D&D game set after the Industrial Revolution.
With the regular game? Not a chance. My players have had some close calls (which I intended to be close and/or kill a couple of characters), but... might I suggest that the problem lies more in a complete lack of system mastery on the DM's part and poor tactical decision-making than in the system itself?

Scots Dragon
2012-05-07, 06:20 AM
This is true, it's so easy to kill your party in 3.5, or so I have heard from DMs. In 4e, setting up an Encoubters is much faster and easier, which is why when I set up a campaign, monsters are last on the list. A 4e party can safely take on (as in run away from) monsters that are five levels above them.

Some people actually like having high lethality. It forces the players to think of options other than charging headlong and hurling fireballs and swinging swords at the legion of monsters waiting for you.

The Troubadour
2012-05-07, 09:33 AM
Some people actually like having high lethality. It forces the players to think of options other than charging headlong and hurling fireballs and swinging swords at the legion of monsters waiting for you.

True, but isn't D&D, at its core, supposed to allow/encourage the PCs to charge headlong, hurling fireballs and swinging swords at the legion of monsters waiting for them?

hamlet
2012-05-07, 09:37 AM
True, but isn't D&D, at its core, supposed to allow/encourage the PCs to charge headlong, hurling fireballs and swinging swords at the legion of monsters waiting for them?

No. Only post 3rd edition.

The earlier editions, actually, rewarded much more the act of getting treasures and getting out while avoiding monsters. Monsters were worth dramatically less in terms of XP and were quite a bit more dangerous comparitively speaking.

By third edition, though, the designers figured that "kicking in the door, killing the monsters in an orgy of blood and cinematic violence, and stealing their stuff" was the point and designed their version of the game around that.

The Troubadour
2012-05-07, 10:00 AM
The earlier editions, actually, rewarded much more the act of getting treasures and getting out while avoiding monsters. Monsters were worth dramatically less in terms of XP and were quite a bit more dangerous comparitively speaking.

Considering you gained only 1 XP for every GP, and how most of the time there was very little chance of getting the treasure without having to face the monster in some way, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. :-) Oh, sure, surviving the first 3 levels was a lot harder in AD&D than in 3rd/4th Editions, but the way the adventures were designed didn't really change a whole lot.

hamlet
2012-05-07, 10:05 AM
Considering you gained only 1 XP for every GP, and how most of the time there was very little chance of getting the treasure without having to face the monster in some way, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. :-) Oh, sure, surviving the first 3 levels was a lot harder in AD&D than in 3rd/4th Editions, but the way the adventures were designed didn't really change a whole lot.

My experience was the opposite, actually. In the end, you managed to scrape together a fair amount of cash, even if it wasn't what you'd call massive amounts of gold, it was enough to push you closer towards leveling than if you stood there toe to toe with something that hit harder and more often than you did. Best plan was to find out where the money was hidden, distract the guards, and grab the loot when they were looking elsewhere.

Standing and fighting was, typically, a bad option and to be done only when you had no other choices or you were specifically gunning for the monster in question.

Solaris
2012-05-07, 10:10 AM
My experience was the opposite, actually. In the end, you managed to scrape together a fair amount of cash, even if it wasn't what you'd call massive amounts of gold, it was enough to push you closer towards leveling than if you stood there toe to toe with something that hit harder and more often than you did. Best plan was to find out where the money was hidden, distract the guards, and grab the loot when they were looking elsewhere.

Standing and fighting was, typically, a bad option and to be done only when you had no other choices or you were specifically gunning for the monster in question.

Mm, for the good ol' days when rogues were thieves, fighters were ablative meat-shields, and wizards were the weenie little mages who everyone used to distract the threats with his soft, delicious body so the really useful people could loot everything.

hamlet
2012-05-07, 10:25 AM
Mm, for the good ol' days when rogues were thieves, fighters were ablative meat-shields, and wizards were the weenie little mages who everyone used to distract the threats with his soft, delicious body so the really useful people could loot everything.

Or, as I tend to describe it: the good ol' days, where you didn't have to be the fastest member of the party, just faster than the dwarf in heavy armor.

Wings of Peace
2012-05-07, 10:30 AM
I for my part will miss old Monte Cook. Whether I agreed with his philosophies or not on design his system is my personal favorite and I'd have liked to see that same creative force working on 5e.

Solaris
2012-05-07, 11:33 AM
Or, as I tend to describe it: the good ol' days, where you didn't have to be the fastest member of the party, just faster than the dwarf in heavy armor.

I've always figured that was the reason dwarves had a higher Constitution than anyone else - natural selection ensured that only the toughest of the li'l buggers survived.

hamlet
2012-05-07, 12:10 PM
I've always figured that was the reason dwarves had a higher Constitution than anyone else - natural selection ensured that only the toughest of the li'l buggers survived.

Perhaps. Or perhaps dwarves are, simply put, the ubermenchen, a superior race to other mere mortals, especially those poncy elves flouncing their way around the forests which, as any good dwarf will tell you, should be clear cut and used to fuel the furnaces of artifice and creation and to prevent the hordes of trees from sneaking up on you.

hamlet
2012-05-07, 12:12 PM
I've always figured that was the reason dwarves had a higher Constitution than anyone else - natural selection ensured that only the toughest of the li'l buggers survived.

Perhaps. Or perhaps dwarves are, simply put, the ubermenchen, a superior race to other mere mortals, especially those poncy elves flouncing their way around the forests which, as any good dwarf will tell you, should be clear cut and used to fuel the furnaces of artifice and creation and to prevent the hordes of trees from sneaking up on you.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-07, 12:20 PM
I'm not sure it's possible. Any fight in 3.x that is remotely level appropriate will end with the PCs dead if they let it drag on that long without finishing it themselves (unless the combat got dragged out to 2 hours via rules arguments and the like. But I never really had a huge problem with that in D&D, it's more a problem I frequently had with Shadowrun)

It's possible, but unlikely. If you play at low op levels, combat can take a little longer, and defensive builds are more likely. In addition, certain combats can be built with additional combatants entering after X number of rounds, which allows you to have a bit more overall opposing force than if they were all there at once.

Additionally, you can have choke points or other terrain features that limit the ability of the hostile parties to fully engage each other, can drag fights out a bit.

That said, 3.5 fights don't tend to take all that long unless you specifically try to make them do so.


This is true, it's so easy to kill your party in 3.5, or so I have heard from DMs. In 4e, setting up an Encoubters is much faster and easier, which is why when I set up a campaign, monsters are last on the list. A 4e party can safely take on (as in run away from) monsters that are five levels above them.

Never really seen that as a problem. A brand new DM with the core books, following the encounter guidelines, should not frequently have a problem with killing the party. Yes, there will be the occasional fight that the party just hasn't geared to face(like shadows early on, or a gelatinous cube with only slashing weapons), but...running is often an option. Now, if he tosses out the CR guidelines or does not understand them, and begins picking willy-nilly, there are problems...but that's true in basically any system.

nyarlathotep
2012-05-07, 01:04 PM
Never really seen that as a problem. A brand new DM with the core books, following the encounter guidelines, should not frequently have a problem with killing the party. Yes, there will be the occasional fight that the party just hasn't geared to face(like shadows early on, or a gelatinous cube with only slashing weapons), but...running is often an option. Now, if he tosses out the CR guidelines or does not understand them, and begins picking willy-nilly, there are problems...but that's true in basically any system.

It's usually at higher levels where this becomes an issue, or the surprise things like it being almost impossible for a level 1 PC to survive a critical from the standard orc weapon a greataxe.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-05-07, 05:39 PM
I think any time you have a fractured team, and people leaving the project due to ''Differences'', it cannot be a good sign.

Who it was means less to me than the fact that it happened to begin with. This isn't something that happens on high-performing teams. I don't want to go all gloom and doom just yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I guess one of them should have...

( •_•)

( •_•)>¬■_■

(¬■_■)

Rolled a Bard.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

KnightDisciple
2012-05-07, 06:32 PM
I guess one of them should have...

( •_•)

( •_•)>¬■_■

(¬■_■)

Rolled a Bard.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHH
Welp, Lonely Tylenol just won the thread. :smallbiggrin:

Shadowknight12
2012-05-07, 06:33 PM
I guess one of them should have...

( •_•)

( •_•)>¬■_■

(¬■_■)

Rolled a Bard.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

By the gods. Just... by the gods.

TuggyNE
2012-05-07, 11:54 PM
Welp, Lonely Tylenol just won the thread. :smallbiggrin:

'fraid I have to agree there. Well played sir, well played.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 02:19 AM
Honestly, I have seen nothing about "D&D Next" that makes me believe I will like it. On the other hand I really liked what I saw of D&D 4e, but when it actually came out I didn't like it very much, so I guess I should keep an open mind.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of most of Monte Cook's independent work. I don't know much about him as person, or how hard he is or is not to work with, but from what I've seen he doesn't really understand the problems with D&D 3/3.5, or how to fix them.(D&D 4e on the other hand, knew the problems, but over fixed them to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original).

Figgin of Chaos
2012-05-08, 02:21 AM
Technically, "Inspire Confidence" isn't a core bard ability. I only know that because I often mix up "Inspire Competence" with it, though. So yeah. Not contesting Lonely Tylenol's aforementioned victory over the thread.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-05-08, 04:36 AM
Technically, "Inspire Confidence" isn't a core bard ability. I only know that because I often mix up "Inspire Competence" with it, though. So yeah. Not contesting Lonely Tylenol's aforementioned victory over the thread.

I know, but when you don't have the benefit of people randomly saying "inspire competence" or "inspire courage" in casual conversation, you learn to use a little...

( •_•)

( •_•)>¬■_■

(¬■_■)

Improvisation.
As the spell.
YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

hamlet
2012-05-08, 08:22 AM
Honestly, I have seen nothing about "D&D Next" that makes me believe I will like it. On the other hand I really liked what I saw of D&D 4e, but when it actually came out I didn't like it very much, so I guess I should keep an open mind.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of most of Monte Cook's independent work. I don't know much about him as person, or how hard he is or is not to work with, but from what I've seen he doesn't really understand the problems with D&D 3/3.5, or how to fix them.(D&D 4e on the other hand, knew the problems, but over fixed them to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original).

It's not quite, IMO, that he doesn't understand the problems in 3.x. It's that he learned the wrong lesson from AD&D system mastery. In AD&D, you could really help yourself along quite well if you knew some of the fiddly parts of the system, some of the quirks and how to exploit them. However, if you didn't know these bits, you still had no trouble playing the game and keeping up with pretty much everybody else except, maybe, "that one guy."

However, in 3.x, you can hoplessly wreck your character by not knowing which feats are optimal, or by grabbing a sub-optimal feat because you didn't understand how it interacts with something else. In 3.x, you can unintentionally completely gank your character (again, assuming a minimum certain level of group/DM optimization which is not really power gaming) into uselessness if you choose the "wrong" feat or power or whatever. And Monte Cook thinks that's a feature, which bugs the hell out of me.

He, and actually the other designers too, believe in a certain style of gaming, and cannot fathom that not everybody shares that point of view. And the system shows in that if you don't like their style of gaming, then 3.x is less than useful to you.

All that said . . . the guy's actually quite creative. He just needs to be kept far away from the rules, IMO, and left to write the story and such with a strong editor standing over his shoulder hitting him frequently with the stupid bat. With strong editorial supervision, the guy's quite excellent. Free of that, he suffers.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-08, 08:43 AM
It's usually at higher levels where this becomes an issue, or the surprise things like it being almost impossible for a level 1 PC to survive a critical from the standard orc weapon a greataxe.

Level 1 is rocket taggy, yeah.

That said, the standard orc weapon is a falchion. Inna stat block and everything. Now mind you, it still hurts badly if it crits on level 1, but it's not quite greataxe level.

However, the fact that you might lose a PC or two at lower levels isn't the same as killing off the entire party. To do that, you usually have to significantly mis-CR something...or the party has to make some serious errors*. Which, frankly, is a quite reasonable reason to die.

*As an example, a recent fight in a game I play turned into inter-party conflict. So, we're fighting each other...while fighting mobs. Somehow we all got through, but it turned an easy fight into a near-lethal one.

DeltaEmil
2012-05-08, 09:32 AM
That said, the standard orc weapon is a falchion. Inna stat block and everything. Now mind you, it still hurts badly if it crits on level 1, but it's not quite greataxe level.Of course, orcs were given falchions in 3.5 instead of greataxes like in 3.0 because they instantly killed a level 1-4 character with a confirmed critical, which was quite easy for them.
The art however still shows orcs with greataxes.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-08, 09:53 AM
Of course, orcs were given falchions in 3.5 instead of greataxes like in 3.0 because they instantly killed a level 1-4 character with a confirmed critical, which was quite easy for them.
The art however still shows orcs with greataxes.

There were a few little glitches in 3.0 that were improved in 3.5, yes. That said, given how long 3.5's been available, and that Monte Cook was generally a fan of the changes from 3 to 3.5(they're a focal point of his examples), I suspect that using the 3.0 as standard is probably not valid any longer.

And in my experience, the art isn't a big determinant for how hard fights are. Most new DMs just use statblocks as written.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-08, 11:36 AM
I know, but when you don't have the benefit of people randomly saying "inspire competence" or "inspire courage" in casual conversation, you learn to use a little...

( •_•)

( •_•)>¬■_■

(¬■_■)

Improvisation.
As the spell.
YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

By the gods. Again. By the gods.

chomskola
2012-05-11, 05:49 AM
[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;13165171]I do not think someone deserves respect simply because they created something I enjoyed. I gave them my money, that's a fair trade. I do not owe them any more than that. I respect someone because of how they are, not because of what they do.



Well, off -topic, but this is so wrong. you seem pretty adamant so no one is gonna convince you otherwise. Your lack of gratitude papered over by the excuse that you paid for it is weak. Everyone instinctively knows that paying for something doesn't absolve all other human emotions. It's possible to respect someone's work as well as their moral character.the end.

GRM13
2012-05-11, 09:35 AM
Actually I think he's statement is very fair, yes you can respect someone for their work and as a person but they are in no way mutually connected. I can be grateful for someone's work but despise them for their personality. Credit is due when it is due, but that also doesn't absolve all shortcomings.

As he said respect is something earned as a whole and just because you did one good thing doesn't hide the fact that all other things you've done are of the harming spectrum.

(I'll put it up that I new nothing of the guy until this thread so quite indiferent to the whole thing.)