PDA

View Full Version : 4E: Ding, Dong! The Wish is Dead!



Porthos
2007-11-05, 03:25 PM
Say goodbye to the Wish spell boys and girls:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3871371&postcount=25
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211253

One word reaction? "Good."
Two word reaction? "About Time."
Slightly Longer reaction? "People who really want it can quickly stat it up to appear in their games."
Edited In Snarky Response: "It'll probably appear in the PHB II or the PHB III."

So let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. However, I for one am supremely pleased to see this development. :smallsmile:

Somebloke
2007-11-05, 03:28 PM
Truth be told, I never played a high enough level game to let the Wish spell affect my campaign. But I always felt it so clearly represented the most complete pinnacle of spell power- you could do anything, if you were prepared to pay the cost.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 03:29 PM
Wish down? GREAT. Now, we'll get an even MORE overpowered and cheesy spell, which will make shapechange look tame! Seriously, every time this kind of thing happens, something stronger takes the spot. The only case in which this didn't happen is with the PHBII's somethingshape's (like trollshape and dragonshape).

rankrath
2007-11-05, 03:30 PM
aw, come on! out of all the over powered spells, they say wish is dead for sure? that, unlike timestop or miracle, its power was, per RAW, under DM control. And as a DM, few things are funnier than screwing someone using wish.

Hranat
2007-11-05, 03:31 PM
Never really used wish as character... don't like losing xp.

... villains always tend to get what they want anyway.

Porthos
2007-11-05, 03:33 PM
aw, come on! out of all the over powered spells, they say wish is dead for sure? that, unlike timestop or miracle, its power was, per RAW, under DM control. And as a DM, few things are funnier than screwing someone using wish.

I'm sure the Ring of Three Wishes will still be around for that possibility. :smallwink:

As for the others, well, if they're nuking the scared cow that is known as Wish, what makes you think Time Stop, Shapechange and all of the other broken spells won't hit the chopping block? :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2007-11-05, 03:53 PM
I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

Green Bean
2007-11-05, 03:58 PM
I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

Well, to be honest, Wish is the sort of spell that I really think shouldn't be statted out. It's more of a plot device, like a ritual that destroys existence, or the nexus that anchors the Material Plane to the Great Wheel, etc. They aren't statted out; they work how the DM says they work.

Jasdoif
2007-11-05, 03:58 PM
Has this appeared in an official spot anywhere?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-05, 04:02 PM
I'm far more concerned about things like Fabricate than Time Stop...

Roderick_BR
2007-11-05, 04:12 PM
Wish is one of the spells I'd push to epic level. Like True Resurrection too.
Use the Limited Wish and simple Resurrection in place of these ones.
These kind of powers shouldn't be available to players outside of epic.

CatCameBack
2007-11-05, 04:16 PM
One of my most cherished meories playing D&D was when I was 14 yrs. old playing in a high powered campaign with a group of players who averaged around 24 yrs. old. We were in the middle of a battle that was going pretty badly for us. Then I said the following:

"I'm casting Wish from the scroll..."

I didn't yell it, I barely said it out loud, while three other conversations were going on. A second later, you could have heard a mouse farting on a pillow in China.

I think Roy actually stopped breathing.

A guy named Carl stared at me like I was about to arm a Nuclear bomb and said, "Word it very carefully."

The DM smiled at me like Hannibal and said "I'll give you a minute to write down exactly what you're going to Wish for".

Every player should have memories like that.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-05, 04:46 PM
I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

I agree with you especially because of this part hidden in the bottom of that first link:

-He told me one of his fellow designers/play-testers was happy and relieved to go back to being a DM in 4th, as I guess being a player can be quite taxing/involved.

That sends up a red flag. There is no way a player's role should be more taxing than the DM's. Maybe its just me, but this scares me.

As for wish being cut, my first reaction was: meh. My second was: ....meh? And my third was: I guess that kind of sucks, though I've never used it.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 04:53 PM
That sends up a red flag. There is no way a player's role should be more taxing than the DM's. Maybe its just me, but this scares me.

The game's mechanics aren't complete yet. Playtesting is the most taxing part of the process. I wouldn't worry.

elliott20
2007-11-05, 04:54 PM
Wish was basically some kind of catch-all spell for when you just don't know what the hell you wanted to cast.

Personally? I never used it.

Valairn
2007-11-05, 04:57 PM
Wish to me is pretty much iconic DnD, I'm sad to see it go.

Prometheus
2007-11-05, 05:04 PM
**** That! A DM can keep Wish no matter what version he is playing. Personally I prefer the 2e rules where defaulting to spell replcation isn't an option.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-05, 05:07 PM
Wish to me is pretty much iconic DnD, I'm sad to see it go.

I'm sure it'll pop up again somewhere, probably among special genies or minor artifacts. Making it a spell any high-level wizard could learn & cast at will never felt right.

Reinboom
2007-11-05, 05:07 PM
I love limited wish... wish itself is too crappy though. I'm sort of glad it's gone.
I don't want limited wish to disappear though.

Indon
2007-11-05, 05:24 PM
Hmm.

It seems to me that Wish was a narratively potent spell, capable of easily modeling mythological creatures who could grant any wish, and who would often be sticklers for the wording.

Unless they replace Wish with, well, a different way to Wish, that does not, to me, bode well for the system's capability of telling stories.

Because if I really want Wish, I don't need to write it up. I can play a system that has it instead.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 05:33 PM
Hmm.

It seems to me that Wish was a narratively potent spell, capable of easily modeling mythological creatures who could grant any wish, and who would often be sticklers for the wording.

Unless they replace Wish with, well, a different way to Wish, that does not, to me, bode well for the system's capability of telling stories.

Because if I really want Wish, I don't need to write it up. I can play a system that has it instead.

Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 05:36 PM
Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."

Full casters were never the be all end all in 1st or 2nd edition, not as long as you had a decent DM.

For WoTC to literally screw with the spell tables rather than try to fix their butchering of the game by adding those Player's Option descendants called "feats" is the problem here.

DivineBriliance
2007-11-05, 05:42 PM
I bet there will still be a resurrect for Arcane users. cause thats all i used wish for to resurrect my party, because when i played the only epic campaign i ever played everyone was idiots.

Anyway there is still homebrews that can fix anything, so don't worry gripeing peoples. if you hate wish, its gone. but if you still like it just nicely ask your dm to give you wish or wish like spell.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 05:42 PM
Full casters were never the be all end all in 1st or 2nd edition, not as long as you had a decent DM.

For WoTC to literally screw with the spell tables rather than try to fix their butchering of the game by adding those Player's Option descendants called "feats" is the problem here.

I don't understand how feats even fit into the problem here. Spells are what break the 3.x game, not feats (well, in all but extraordinarily rare instances, anyway). Wish, despite being an "iconic" spell, is one that has allowed thousands of spellcasters to do whatever the hell they felt like, whenever they felt like it, often wreaking havoc on the plans the DM had for the game, and in occasion making it utterly irretrievable.

And full-casters certainly were the be-all-end-all in earlier editions. You just had to know how to play them. I personally remember--fondly, even--using haste as an offensive spell in 2e: due to its aging side-effect, it would force a system shock roll, which would more often than not kill its target.

Besides, "The game is balanced if you have a good DM" is not an acceptable response. "The game is balanced even if you have a bad DM" is, however, and that's what WotC is shooting for with 4e.

Skyserpent
2007-11-05, 06:00 PM
I'm now wondering if the divine equivalent is gone and how this might affect Tarrasque battles.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 06:22 PM
I don't understand how feats even fit into the problem here. Spells are what break the 3.x game, not feats (well, in all but extraordinarily rare instances, anyway).

You mean how WoTC messed with the spheres during the transition and allowed certain spell casting associated rules from PO books to be gained by players through the new feat system?

Because that's the only thing I see here with 3e.


Wish, despite being an "iconic" spell, is one that has allowed thousands of spellcasters to do whatever the hell they felt like, whenever they felt like it, often wreaking havoc on the plans the DM had for the game, and in occasion making it utterly irretrievable.

Seriously, dude, I've never seen a player abuse Wish in any game run by a competent DM.

As far as that anecdotal comments you are claiming about Wish -I've only ever heard that bullplop coming from the RPGA, a guild of players who never bothered to read the rules to begin with (I've smacked down members of the RPGA before in rule lawyering contests). They should never be taken as an authority over the AD&D rule system and their involvement in "approving 3e" when it came out was an absolute joke echoed by the update from 3e to 3.5. The fact WoTC is going into 4th edition so quickly since the production of 3e/3.5 to fix some of the screw ups only shows how poorly the system was designed in the first place.



And full-casters certainly were the be-all-end-all in earlier editions. You just had to know how to play them. I personally remember--fondly, even--using haste as an offensive spell in 2e: due to its aging side-effect, it would force a system shock roll, which would more often than not kill its target.

LOL seriously dude. I've taken a level 8 munchkin wizard out with 20 kobolds before. Casters never were the end all to games in 1st and 2nd edition. When you have a game setting that involves: monsters with magic resistance, or wild magic zones, or assassins with intellect associated poison, any spell caster is quickly taught how to beg for mercy.

wait let me get this straight... you used Haste as an offensive weapon in order to have a chance of killing an opponent with a system shock roll, instead of say - lightning bolt which not only could fry said opponent, but bounce off the walls and obliterate a few more opponents along with him?

That doesn't show the power of Haste, not by any stretch of the imagination, that shows the ingenuity and luck of a player who got accidently caught with his pants down by not having enough appropriate combat spells memorized.

I'm not debasing you, I think that was an ingenious use of the spell Haste in a combat situation. But that does not make the spell overpowered. That just makes you lucky.


Besides, "The game is balanced if you have a good DM" is not an acceptable response. "The game is balanced even if you have a bad DM" is, however, and that's what WotC is shooting for with 4e.

The entire purpose is to cultivate a need for good DMs. This pathetic attempt to try and make a game system for BAD DMs is only ruining the game for experienced players and DMs alike who like to play with the rules.

By trying to force everybody into a cookie cutter molds. This is the exact opposite of what AD&D was supposed to be.

By creating these cookie cutter molds, and forcing all classes into them, you will ultimately make each class useless and less unique. You make each campaign setting the exact same campaign setting. You make each spell the exact same spell. You remove the process of ingenuity by players, by making the game a straight line of hack and slash from Point A to Point B rather than by allowing players to visit point M's R's and Z's.

Computer games do that. No chance for Role Playing when you've got a computer program determining what you can and can't do. No reason to learn how to read rules and become a good DM if you've got a computer game telling you what you can and can't do.

You talk about balance?

This is what I see happening:

Removing Ingenuity by Players because a only a handful of village idiots out there can't learn how to be good DMs does not constitute balance. It constitutes a homogenized bland rule system that allows for absolutely 0 creativity of free thought.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:29 PM
You mean how WoTC messed with the spheres during the transition and allowed certain spell casting associated rules from PO books to be gained by players through the new feat system?

Because that's the only thing I see here with 3e. So you're talking about metamagic and the removal of spell spheres, then. I can accept that: both of those are very powerful alterations, ones that should have--at least--been more regulated than they were.


Seriously, dude, I've never seen a player abuse Wish in any game run by a competent DM.
And therein lies the problem. Like it or not, most DMs are not capable enough to be able to handle players who really want to break the game. Anything that can be done to lessen or remove that potentiality is a good thing.


As far as that anecdotal comments you are claiming about Wish -I've only ever heard that bullplop coming from the RPGA, a guild of players who never bothered to read the rules to begin with (I've smacked down members of the RPGA before in rule lawyering contests). They should never be taken as an authority over the AD&D rule system and their involvement in "approving 3e" when it came out was an absolute joke echoed by the update from 3e to 3.5. The fact WoTC is going into 4th edition so quickly since the production of 3e/3.5 to fix some of the screw ups only shows how poorly the system was designed in the first place.The system certainly functions better than 2e core does, if only because you never have to look up anything on a table. Look-up tables are the bane of existence and should be burnt.


LOL seriously dude. I've taken a level 8 munchkin wizard out with 20 kobolds before. Casters never were the end all to games in 1st and 2nd edition. When you have a game setting that involves: monsters with magic resistance, or wild magic zones, or assassins with intellect associated poison, any spell caster is quickly taught how to beg for mercy. And any and all of those things are used by a competent DM. See my statement earlier about DMs and competency.


wait let me get this straight... you used Haste as an offensive weapon in order to have a chance of killing an opponent with a system shock roll, instead of say - lightning bolt which not only could fry said opponent, but bounce off the walls and obliterate a few more opponents along with him?

That doesn't show the power of Haste, not by any stretch of the imagination, that shows the ingenuity and luck of a player who got accidently caught with his pants down by not having enough appropriate combat spells memorized.

I'm not debasing you, I think that was an ingenious use of the spell Haste in a combat situation. But that does not make the spell overpowered. That just makes you lucky. Except that it was frequently more effective than using combat spells. My anecdote is not the argument here, however: the way the game works is.


The entire purpose is to cultivate a need for good DMs. This pathetic attempt to try and make a game system for BAD DMs is only ruining the game for experienced players and DMs alike who like to play with the rules.

By trying to force everybody into a cookie cutter molds. This is the exact opposite of what AD&D was supposed to be.

By creating these cookie cutter molds, and forcing all classes into them, you will ultimately make each class useless and less unique. You make each campaign setting the exact same campaign setting. You make each spell the exact same spell. You remove the process of ingenuity by players, by making the game a straight line of hack and slash from Point A to Point B rather than by allowing players to visit point M's R's and Z's.

Computer games do that. No chance for Role Playing when you've got a computer program determining what you can and can't do. No reason to learn how to read rules and become a good DM if you've got a computer game telling you what you can and can't do.

You talk about balance?

This is what I see happening:

Removing Ingenuity by Players because a only a handful of village idiots out there can't learn how to be good DMs does not constitute balance. It constitutes a homogenized bland rule system that allows for absolutely 0 creativity of free thought.I don't see how a simplified ruleset makes roleplaying impossible. I would perosnally think that simlified rules would make it more possible, since you would be able to spend less time trying to figure out your sheet and more time figuring out your personality.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 06:37 PM
And therein lies the problem. Like it or not, most DMs are not capable enough to be able to handle players who really want to break the game. Anything that can be done to lessen or remove that potentiality is a good thing.

You just admitted there's nothing wrong with the game, and the only thing wrong is with the people who play the game.

Do you think that maybe the real solution would be to produce a well written supplement, or to re-write the first 3 chapters of the DMG to properly train and instruct dungeon masters how to be good rather than by screwing the game up beyond all recognition to make up for the few who don't know how to play?


The system certainly functions better than 2e core does, if only because you never have to look up anything on a table. Look-up tables are the bane of existence and should be burnt.

LOL Dude, as a DM I memorized almost all the tables, and I tell ya, after character creation, I've never seen a player have to look anything up.

If you're a decent DM you should either know how to handle your adventure with the tables or you should design an adventure without tables.

By trying to regulate 3e into this White Wolf Anti-Table Story Teller bullplop, AD&D has gone through 3 editions (3e, 3.5 and 4e) in less than 8 years. That is outrageous.

Obviously this new method sucks far worse than you think or they wouldn't be trying to FIX IT all the time.


And any and all of those things are used by a competent DM. See my statement earlier about DMs and competency.
See my statement earlier about why you're supposed to instruct DMs rather than SCREW the game up to fix a problem that's centered on the USER and NOT the System.


Except that it was frequently more effective than using combat spells. My anecdote is not the argument here, however: the way the game works is.

PFFT LOL Haste as an offensive weapon is never and can never be more effective than using same level combat spells. You must not have been using your combat spells correctly.


I don't see how a simplified ruleset makes roleplaying impossible. I would perosnally think that simlified rules would make it more possible, since you would be able to spend less time trying to figure out your sheet and more time figuring out your personality.

Oh please, it's destroying the foundation of encounters that affect role playing. If you hate tables and rules so much then either play original D&D which had almost 0 rules, or play something from WoD.

The total abandonment of ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for the current system just because a few kids can't learn how to DM makes me utterly sick.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-05, 06:40 PM
Fax - I don't think it's worth it to argue with this guy. I doubt anything anyone says is going to change his mind, and I don't want this to end up being a repeat of TLN and Molonel. You're far too big a part of this community.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:45 PM
You just admitted there's nothing wrong with the game, and the only thing wrong is with the people who play the game.

Do you think that maybe the real solution would be to produce a well written supplement, or to re-write the first 3 chapters of the DMG to properly train and instruct dungeon masters how to be good rather than by screwing the game up beyond all recognition to make up for the few who don't know how to play? They did that. They called it the DMG 2.


LOL Dude, as a DM I memorized almost all the tables, and I tell ya, after character creation, I've never seen a player have to look anything up.

If you're a decent DM you should either know how to handle your adventure with the tables or you should design an adventure without tables.

By trying to regulate 3e into this White Wolf Anti-Table Story Teller bullplop, AD&D has gone through 3 editions (3e, 3.5 and 4e) in less than 8 years. That is outrageous.

Obviously this new method sucks far worse than you think or they wouldn't be trying to FIX IT all the time.Not all of us are capable of memorizing tables like you are, you know. And what's with this anti-White Wolf propaganda?


See my statement earlier about why you're supposed to instruct DMs rather than SCREW the game up to fix a problem that's centered on the USER and NOT the System.
The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum, and honestly, WotC can't fix the players. They can fix the game.


Oh please, it's destroying the foundation of encounters that affect role playing. If you hate tables and rules so much then either play original D&D which had almost 0 rules, or play something from WoD.

The total abandonment of ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for the current system just because a few kids can't learn how to DM makes me utterly sick.

Then perhaps you're not looking at the right material. Magic of Incarnum is "advanced", as is the new psionics system (something that 2e was never able to get right). Or perhaps Tome of Magic? Tome of Battle? These are all well thought out supplements that do not alter the balance of play significantly and are suable by both beginners and advanced users.

And I do play WoD games, actually, and I used to prefer them to D&D. I don't anymore, because I like complexity in my games when I play them, but not when I run them.

But mechanical complexity? That does not make a good system. All it makes is a complex one.

Dausuul
2007-11-05, 06:52 PM
Full casters were never the be all end all in 1st or 2nd edition, not as long as you had a decent DM.

For WoTC to literally screw with the spell tables rather than try to fix their butchering of the game by adding those Player's Option descendants called "feats" is the problem here.

Wha?

I'll concede there's plenty of powergaming fodder in 3E (just like there was in 2E, and 1E), but feats are quite tame compared to class options, equipment, and especially spells. Please explain exactly what you think is so broken about the feat system.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 06:54 PM
I'm actually in an AD&D 2E game, IRL, right now. With house rules, like all AD&D games.

The system is absolute crap. Anything D&D does to distance itself from that is good.

I have many, many complaints with the 3.5 system. AD&D... it isn't even a system. It's a loose association of random rules people cam eup with off of the top of their head, with no design philosophy and no knowledge of good game design--you just have to look at things like racial level caps to see that.

No, forget racial level caps. Having a prime stat of 16+--a rare occurence in most AD&D games, and one that makes your character significantly better than anything below it; 16 is where the bonuses really start being granted--makes you earn 10% more experience. That's right: the people with the more powerful characters get more XP. That is the absolute freaking opposite of good game design. I am mindboggled as to how someone could've thought this was a good idea.


If you think "there's nothing wrong with the game"--AD&D or 3.5--you are seriously kidding yourself. A good DM can compensate for the many problems, but he shouldn't have to.

Edit: Oh, and no, full casters weren't the be all end all of the game in AD&D. Instead, wizards had one spell at first level, and their spells known were determined randomly. So they had one crappy spell. That they didn't even pick. That's more useless than 3.5 fighters are at high levels.

And then they got up to high levels and *did* become the be-all end-all of the game. For all the talk about fighter saving throws, even a level 20 fighter has to roll a 6 to save vs. spells. He might have a bonus, but then, at that level, he's going to be facing spells that force saves at a -4 penalty.

Tren
2007-11-05, 06:57 PM
All this discussion of WotC releasing new editions to "fix their mistakes", that's not really the point of new editions and supplements. A lot of old timers look back at 2E as the "good ol' days", some golden age of gaming where everything was perfect and the TSR staff personally flew around your game table on pixie wings to make sure everything was to the players liking (that may be hyperbole, but I think you know what I'm saying). TSR also went bankrupt. I imagine the edition patches and more rapid edition changes are largely (if not entirely) an effort on WotC's part to make sure that D&D remains a profitable franchise property by forcing content updates more frequently than TSR did.

Moff Chumley
2007-11-05, 06:57 PM
The way I see it, rules exist to better convey to people what is practical for them to do. I have never told any of my players, "you can't do that." I just told them how they would have to go about doing it.

On the subject of Wish, it shouldn't be something you can do every day, and I'm glad to see it gone. However, without rings of three wishes and various types of Djinni, it would be much more of a loss.

Edit: A brutal sextuple ninja of Moff Chumley... KFC is certanly keeping up the pressure...
@V I tried. It still was longer than I intended. :smallyuk:

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-05, 06:58 PM
Wow.

I can't say I'm happy about this. I'll avoid ranting though. ^^;

Chronos
2007-11-05, 07:03 PM
Hmm.

It seems to me that Wish was a narratively potent spell, capable of easily modeling mythological creatures who could grant any wish, and who would often be sticklers for the wording.But there aren't really all that many mythological creatures who can grant something resembling D&D's Wish. The archtypical example, I think, is Aladdin's genie. But the genie just worked as a (very powerful) servant. If, for instance, you wished for so-and-so to be dead, the genie wouldn't snap his fingers and it'd be done. No, he would go and fight that person. And if the person you wished dead were extremely powerful, he'd beat the genie, and you wouldn't get your wish.

I think that most of the wish-granting creatures in literature and mythology actually follow this same pattern: They're powerful creatures, and when you make a wish, they use their powers to try to do what you want. Well, by this standard, a wizard (even without a spell called Wish) can grant wishes, too: Wizards are also powerful creatures, and the spells they do have enable them to do many wondrous things.

Jarlax
2007-11-05, 10:36 PM
I'm now wondering if the divine equivalent is gone and how this might affect Tarrasque battles.

i think you have actually hit the issue on the head. Wish is strung throughout the core books and beyond as the catch all spell. like the fact that you cant kill a Tarrasque without it.

now, just because wish is gone does not mean that the Dijinni or the ring of three wishes are also gone. the WOTC boys have already stated that monsters in 4E don't replicate spells as powers any more. which means Dijinnis with some kind of wish granting power can still be in.

Leon
2007-11-05, 11:09 PM
Playtesting is the most taxing part of the process. I wouldn't worry.

Dunno, the way WotC churns some stuff out without regard is rather worrisome. That and the lack of editing for errors in products

Counterspin
2007-11-06, 12:48 AM
Wish is the ultimate example of the sort of thing that can't and shouldn't be in the rules. It is entirely dependent on the GM. As a spell it was obnoxiously overpowered because it gave wizards access to whatever they wanted, circumventing the prime limitation of an already powerful class, readying spells. It was always far better as a plot device, and that's where it is now. All for the good I say.

Dervag
2007-11-06, 01:09 AM
Say goodbye to the Wish spell boys and girls:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3871371&postcount=25
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211253Those are both from the same source. Is the source reliable?


Well, to be honest, Wish is the sort of spell that I really think shouldn't be statted out. It's more of a plot device, like a ritual that destroys existence, or the nexus that anchors the Material Plane to the Great Wheel, etc. They aren't statted out; they work how the DM says they work.Yes, but by making them a spell, you make them an established part of the cosmology.

Wishes are one of the most fundamental ideas of fantasy, dating back to some of the unguessably old fairy tales. I think D&D would be poorer without a formalized expression of this idea.


Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."The full caster's power of Wish was never the be-all-end-all feature. No one spell was. The cumulative effect of all the spells, sure. But a DM willing to let Wish totally dominate the game, above and beyond what could be achieved using the power of other ninth-level spells, would likely end up allowing a caster to dominate the game by other means even without wishes.

And why can't we have Wish without making it a caster's option? I mean, if I free a genie from a bottle, I want my three wishes, not my three "I'll owe you a favor"s.


Fax - I don't think it's worth it to argue with this guy. I doubt anything anyone says is going to change his mind, and I don't want this to end up being a repeat of TLN and Molonel. You're far too big a part of this community.Seconded. I actually agree with some of what he's saying, but I don't want it to turn into a stupid-fest of fighting.


Wish is the ultimate example of the sort of thing that can't and shouldn't be in the rules. It is entirely dependent on the GM. As a spell it was obnoxiously overpowered because it gave wizards access to whatever they wanted, circumventing the prime limitation of an already powerful class, readying spells. It was always far better as a plot device, and that's where it is now. All for the good I say.Without the spell-replicating function, I don't think it would really be that bad. In older editions, the attached price and risk of casting a wish was high enough that casters would only do it in an emergency, unless I am much mistaken. Something like that could be reinstituted.

TheOOB
2007-11-06, 02:28 AM
Funny, I never found wish to be overpowered, the xp cost for wish is enough that you can't cast it without some reservations. The biggest problem I had with it was the fact that I had no idea what it could do, it's a rules dispute loaded gun.

Porthos
2007-11-06, 02:47 AM
Funny, I never found wish to be overpowered, the xp cost for wish is enough that you can't cast it without some reservations. The biggest problem I had with it was the fact that I had no idea what it could do, it's a rules dispute loaded gun.

Step One: Wait until you have just passed 18th level.*
Step Two: Cast Five Wish spells in a row to increase an Stat by 5. (this will knock you down to 16th level) *
Step Three: Planeshift to a Random Plane Where You Know You Will Be Challenged But Not Killed. Wander around for a while to make up for the 25000 xps you just lost.
Step Four: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three five more times to max out your stats.
Step Five: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three and Four for all of your adventuring buddies.

Congratulations, with a Planeshift/Wish combo you have now added +5 to all of your stats (never mind all of the loot you got for the level appropriate encounters). While it is hard to get a lot of xps at high level if you are just running around your home prime, it is a lot easier when are dealing with, quite literally, infinity.

Is the above boring and tedious? You bet. Is it dangerous? I suppose, although it's always easy to pick a fight on the Outer Planes. :smallwink: Would any DM in their right minds allow it? Probably not.

But the fact that Wish is that easily abusable to twink out the parties stats shows how Wish can be broken. With a permissive DM, xps aren't exactly hard to come by, you know. :smallamused:

* Alternatively, you could scribe Wish on a scroll, go out and get your 5000 (+scribe scroll cost) xp back by adventuring. Then rinse and repeat until you have five scrolls of Wish. Then you cast your scrolls in five batch quantities.

Khanderas
2007-11-06, 03:06 AM
I'm now wondering if the divine equivalent is gone and how this might affect Tarrasque battles.
Personally I feel that a legendary monster should not be killable by a group 3-5 no matter how many levels they carry around.
At the very least I feel succeeding in killing it would only cause it to disappear, only to wake up somewhere else after the normal hibernation months.

There should never be a, "We killed a few dragons, then the Tarrasque and then we had breakfast" situations. You run or you die. For heroic points you help relocate villages / cities and save lives, but he should always be bigger then you.

Reinboom
2007-11-06, 03:07 AM
Step One: Wait until you have just passed 18th level.*
Step Two: Cast Five Wish spells in a row to increase an Stat by 5. (this will knock you down to 16th level) *
Step Three: Planeshift to a Random Plane Where You Know You Will Be Challenged But Not Killed. Wander around for a while to make up for the 25000 xps you just lost.
Step Four: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three five more times to max out your stats.
Step Five: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three and Four for all of your adventuring buddies.

Congratulations, with a Planeshift/Wish combo you have now added +5 to all of your stats (never mind all of the loot you got for the level appropriate encounters). While it is hard to get a lot of xps at high level if you are just running around your home prime, it is a lot easier when are dealing with, quite literally, infinity.

Is the above boring and tedious? You bet. Is it dangerous? I suppose, although it's always easy to pick a fight on the Outer Planes. :smallwink: Would any DM in their right minds allow it? Probably not.

But the fact that Wish is that easily abusable to twink out the parties stats shows how Wish can be broken. With a permissive DM, xps aren't exactly hard to come by, you know. :smallamused:

* Alternatively, you could scribe Wish on a scroll, go out and get your 5000 (+scribe scroll cost) xp back by adventuring. Then rinse and repeat until you have five scrolls of Wish. Then you cast your scrolls in five batch quantities.

Two issues:
1) What is your party doing during this time?
2)

XP Cost (XP)

Some powerful spells entail an experience point cost to you. No spell can restore the XP lost in this manner. You cannot spend so much XP that you lose a level, so you cannot cast the spell unless you have enough XP to spare. However, you may, on gaining enough XP to attain a new level, use those XP for casting a spell rather than keeping them and advancing a level. The XP are treated just like a material component—expended when you cast the spell, whether or not the casting succeeds.
Can't spend XP to drop your own level. The spell simply can't be cast.

Porthos
2007-11-06, 03:13 AM
Two issues:
1) What is your party doing during this time?
2)

Can't spend XP to drop your own level. The spell simply can't be cast.

1) Adventuring with you, collecting fat loot, and waiting for Step Five. :smallbiggrin:
2) I may be mistaken, but if you advance a level, you may immediately cast a spell that drops you back to your old level.

Regardless, that's why you scribe scrolls in nice 5000 piece chunks. :smallamused:

EDIT:::::

Let me put this another way. The very idea that a person could cast five Wish spells in a single day (which they can at 19th level) not only borders on the absurd, but it completely blows the idea of what Wish is supposed to represent away.

IMO, at least. :smallsmile:

Temp
2007-11-06, 03:26 AM
Step Three: Planeshift to a Random Plane Where You Know You Will Be Challenged But Not Killed. Wander around for a while to make up for the 25000 xps you just lost.
First, could you describe this hypothetical plane?

Second, why would these slight ability boosts ever be more valuable than the enormous experience costs?

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-11-06, 03:51 AM
*Maniacal laugh*

Now the pale masters will never stop me! *cackles*

Seriously. Thank god wish is gone.

Leush
2007-11-06, 08:08 AM
It really makes no difference.

Non at all.

There is no way to save a game with bad player/bad DM. Non. At all.


Make something idiotproof and nature will make a better idiot.

So it makes absolutely no difference.

Dausuul
2007-11-06, 08:28 AM
It really makes no difference.

Non at all.

There is no way to save a game with bad player/bad DM. Non. At all.

So it makes absolutely no difference.

That's a false dichotomy. The gaming community does not consist exclusively of fair-minded, system-savvy, creative, mature players/DMs and munchkin, rules-lawyering, unimaginative, childish players/DMs. There are people all along the spectrum.

Sure, there's no saving a game if the DM is really bad, and a really good DM can wring a good game out of virtually any system. Likewise for players. But most DMs and players fall somewhere in between those extremes, and for them, the quality of the system can make or break the game.

Alex12
2007-11-06, 08:51 AM
I've refrained from commenting on 4E threads up until now, but my rant-o-meter is hitting the red zone and I have to do a pressure bleed.

Based on what I've seen of 4E, I don't want it. A huge part of the appeal of D&D for me is wish fulfillment. I like being able to do things like revise reality to my whims. I like being able to shoot lasers or fireballs from my fingertips. I like the ability to dismember people who get in my way. I want to be able to do the really awesome stuff that 3.5 lets me do at high levels. That being the case, the depowering of D&D that I'm seeing in 4E makes it less fun. I know that I can't currently affect the world at large in any immediately noticeable way in RL, but I can still get that feeling from D&D. My group agrees with me. So, we'll be sticking to 3.5 even after 4E comes out thankyouverymuch.

Okay, that wasn't too bad.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-06, 08:53 AM
I think you should just wait for it to come out. S'long as I can have a useful fighter, or can rework ToB into 4ed, me be happy.

Morty
2007-11-06, 09:55 AM
I've refrained from commenting on 4E threads up until now, but my rant-o-meter is hitting the red zone and I have to do a pressure bleed.

Based on what I've seen of 4E, I don't want it. A huge part of the appeal of D&D for me is wish fulfillment. I like being able to do things like revise reality to my whims. I like being able to shoot lasers or fireballs from my fingertips. I like the ability to dismember people who get in my way. I want to be able to do the really awesome stuff that 3.5 lets me do at high levels. That being the case, the depowering of D&D that I'm seeing in 4E makes it less fun. I know that I can't currently affect the world at large in any immediately noticeable way in RL, but I can still get that feeling from D&D. My group agrees with me. So, we'll be sticking to 3.5 even after 4E comes out thankyouverymuch.

Okay, that wasn't too bad.

:smallconfused: From where are you getting the impression that D&D is going to be "depowered" in 4ed? Nothing except of getting rid of Wish, something I personally couldn't care less about, implies that. Some people even argue that it's the other way around.

hamlet
2007-11-06, 09:56 AM
I'm actually in an AD&D 2E game, IRL, right now. With house rules, like all AD&D games.

The system is absolute crap. Anything D&D does to distance itself from that is good.


You see, that's the biggest, most glaring issue I have with so many modern gamers. The absolute vitriol and, frankly, stupidity associated with discussing other editions.

I get it, you don't like AD&D. But then you go and say something like the above (and yes, I realize the troll in the thread was coming from the other point of view) and all it accomplishes is to make you look like a close minded idiot who confuses opinion with fact. You (and most here actually) are just as bad as the fools at Dragonsfoot who quoted the acronym TETSNBN (THE EDITION THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED) for 3rd edition and who, almost to a man, despise anything not personally signed off on by Gary Gygax.

Lay off the trashing of other systems. It gets real old real fast.

Artanis
2007-11-06, 11:24 AM
It really makes no difference.

Non at all.

There is no way to save a game with bad player/bad DM. Non. At all.



So it makes absolutely no difference.
The problem with this attitude is that everybody was a bad player or DM at some point. How many people were capable of properly adjudicating something like Wish the first time they ever sat down at the gaming table? Very, very few, if anybody at all.

If you make a game that can only be enjoyed by people with high amounts of experience, then pretty much by definition you won't be able to get new people to start playing. If you can't get new people to start playing, then the game dies. So you HAVE to TRY to make the game playable by those who just aren't very good if you want to stay in business.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 11:45 AM
If you make a game where you try to eliminate freek thinking and free thought you are making a terrible game. That's why I hate the premise of making 3e/4e for bad players to play well.

All you're going to do is cultivate an entirely new level of players who suck worse than the worst bad player in 2nd edition.

You need to build a game system which encourages people to learn and develop. Nobody is born a good dm/player, they have to work and learn how to become good dms/players.

By trying to remove the issues that bad DMs and Players can't overcome, but good DMs and Players can overcome, all you wind up doing is alienating those who know how to play, pushing them to other game systems, while cultivating a bunch of people who've no capacity for understanding.

And seriously, if I can teach a friend of mine, who's mentally retarded, to be a good player for 2nd edition or even basic D&D, then the problem is not part of the system, the problem is those who play it. And by catering to people who don't wish to learn how to become better players (namely the heads of the RPGA), you are catering to the downfall of the system.

3 editions in 8 years is evidence of Rome Falling.

here's what I see happening:

Teacher - since 5 of you in our 32 person 3rd grade class can't understand how to multiply numbers, or learn your multiplication tables, we've decided to stop teaching multiplication. From now on all you're allowed to learn and use are addition and subtraction tables.

Overlard
2007-11-06, 12:00 PM
3 editions in 8 years is evidence of Rome Falling.
Rome falling? Lay off the hyperbole.

Most people I know have no problem with sticking with 3.5 should 4th edition not tickle their fancy, but would never dream of going back to 2nd edition.

Obviously you've had bad experiences with 3.x, that's fine. But you're a broken record: "2nd ed is better than 3.5, 2nd ed players are better than 3.5 players, if you don't agree you're not doing it right". We get it, you don't like 3.x, and bizarrely keep bringing WW into the equation too - you don't have to mention them in every thread. Please presume we know your thoughts and move on.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:05 PM
I never said 2nd edition players are better than 3rd edition players.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-06, 12:05 PM
Based on what I've seen of 4E, I don't want it. A huge part of the appeal of D&D for me is wish fulfillment.

So I guess you're not in favor of Wish being removed, huh? :smallsmile:

I like the idea of wishes only being granted by beings. It fits in well with the twisting-your-words trope - if you were powering the wish with your mind, you wouldn't intentionally screw yourself over with lawyerly tricks.

(Care to place bets on whether this gets the thread back on track?)

Artanis
2007-11-06, 12:08 PM
If you make a game where you try to eliminate freek thinking and free thought you are making a terrible game. That's why I hate the premise of making 3e/4e for bad players to play well.

All you're going to do is cultivate an entirely new level of players who suck worse than the worst bad player in 2nd edition.

You need to build a game system which encourages people to learn and develop. Nobody is born a good dm/player, they have to work and learn how to become good dms/players.
You just made my point to a t.

If nobody is born a good dm/player, and being a good dm/player is required to enjoy the game, then you aren't going to get new dms/players into the game, including those that will someday become good dms/players. This, in turn, means that the game will die out.

So yes, you need to build a system that encourages people to learn and develop. But making it impossible for a newcomer to play - which is exactly what you're advocating - is the OPPOSITE of creating such a system.


By trying to remove the issues that bad DMs and Players can't overcome, but good DMs and Players can overcome, all you wind up doing is alienating those who know how to play, pushing them to other game systems, while cultivating a bunch of people who've no capacity for understanding.

And seriously, if I can teach a friend of mine, who's mentally retarded, to be a good player for 2nd edition or even basic D&D, then the problem is not part of the system, the problem is those who play it. And by catering to people who don't wish to learn how to become better players (namely the heads of the RPGA), you are catering to the downfall of the system.

3 editions in 8 years is evidence of Rome Falling.

here's what I see happening:

Teacher - since 5 of you in our 32 person 3rd grade class can't understand how to multiply numbers, or learn your multiplication tables, we've decided to stop teaching multiplication. From now on all you're allowed to learn and use are addition and subtraction tables.
Hardly. It's more like:

"Since 5 of you can't understand how to multiply numbers, we've created a separate class - a 'special education' program, if you will - to give those 5 the additional attention they require. The other 27 of you will have a multiplication test on Friday."

Overlard
2007-11-06, 12:10 PM
So I guess you're not in favor of Wish being removed, huh? :smallsmile:

I like the idea of wishes only being granted by beings. It fits in well with the twisting-your-words trope - if you were powering the wish with your mind, you wouldn't intentionally screw yourself over with lawyerly tricks.

(Care to place bets on whether this gets the thread back on track?)
We'll give it a go. :smallwink:

I much prefer the idea of Wish being granted by a hugely powerful being in one way or another. Having it on page 87 of your limited edition Boccob spellbook and having it limited to a number of safe options and anything else is worrisome takes some of the mystique out of it. Not knowing exactly what you're gonna get is part of the fun, so it doesn't really need statting out. The same goes for miracle - they should be direct interventions from the gods themselves, not something you have a scroll of, "just in case".

Porthos
2007-11-06, 12:17 PM
Vampire has had 4 editions in 16 years. (avg 4 years)

Ars Magica has had 5 editions in 20 years. (avg 4 years)

GURPS has had 4 editions in 21 years. (avg 5+ years)

Paranoia has had 4 editions in 19 years. (avg 5- years) [NOTE: Paranoia is a special case as it wasn't being developed for several years, but if we try to eyeball it we get 1984 - 1998 and 2004 - current)

I could go on, but I think I've made my overall point. This idea that game systems stick around for ten years without being refreshed is a bit non starter, when one looks at the rest of the industry. Now I will admit that average can be a bit of a misnomer, as there can be 3 years between editions in one case and 7 years between editions in another.

But my overall point stand. RPGs, at least ones that want to stay in business, refresh their rules from time to time. It doesn't mean you have to like the rules. Heck, it doesn't even mean that the rule changes will be any good. But it really is part of the hobby.

So sorry, no sign of Rome burning here. :smallamused:

Telonius
2007-11-06, 12:20 PM
If you make a game where you try to eliminate freek thinking and free thought you are making a terrible game. That's why I hate the premise of making 3e/4e for bad players to play well.

All you're going to do is cultivate an entirely new level of players who suck worse than the worst bad player in 2nd edition.

You need to build a game system which encourages people to learn and develop. Nobody is born a good dm/player, they have to work and learn how to become good dms/players.

By trying to remove the issues that bad DMs and Players can't overcome, but good DMs and Players can overcome, all you wind up doing is alienating those who know how to play, pushing them to other game systems, while cultivating a bunch of people who've no capacity for understanding.

And seriously, if I can teach a friend of mine, who's mentally retarded, to be a good player for 2nd edition or even basic D&D, then the problem is not part of the system, the problem is those who play it. And by catering to people who don't wish to learn how to become better players (namely the heads of the RPGA), you are catering to the downfall of the system.

3 editions in 8 years is evidence of Rome Falling.

here's what I see happening:

Teacher - since 5 of you in our 32 person 3rd grade class can't understand how to multiply numbers, or learn your multiplication tables, we've decided to stop teaching multiplication. From now on all you're allowed to learn and use are addition and subtraction tables.

You know, I'd find that argument much more convincing if I hadn't played a 3rd edition game with the #1 and #2-ranked students at our top-25 college. #1 was the DM, and all the rest of the players also attended the university. It was our first gaming experience, so we didn't have a huge body of DM notes or house rules to help us out. We played it in-between taking International Economics classes with a guy who has a demand curve named after him, writing 50-page term papers, and trying to eke out a little bit of sleep in the meantime. Stupid we ain't.

We all had fun. The game was simple enough that we didn't have to do differential equations with each roll, but the math was important enough that we screwed ourselves over if we didn't pay attention to it. This left more time for actually role-playing. We weren't interested in doing math for the entire evening. The rules were strict enough that we had some guidelines about characters; but flexible enough that they could accommodate the characters we actually wanted to play. The basic design of the game was excellent. There were super-cheesy combinations that could happen, but we never tried to break the game.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:30 PM
You just made my point to a t.

If nobody is born a good dm/player, and being a good dm/player is required to enjoy the game, then you aren't going to get new dms/players into the game, including those that will someday become good dms/players. This, in turn, means that the game will die out.

So yes, you need to build a system that encourages people to learn and develop. But making it impossible for a newcomer to play - which is exactly what you're advocating - is the OPPOSITE of creating such a system.

No, I am not advocating making a system that requires experience to play. I am advocating making a tutorial that instructs people how to play.

Also you seem to be forgetting a major fact about AD&D.

AD&D is considered a step up from D&D basic system.

D&D basic system is what taught people how to be good players and good DMs. The problem si TSR screwed this system up by trying to make an advanced gaming system (AD&D) which looks like a basic gaming system (D&D) and it's since turned into a mudhole that has to be change 3 editions in 8 years. That's just over every 2 years a new edition and new erratum has to be issued in order to fix the mudhole of mistakes.



Hardly. It's more like:

"Since 5 of you can't understand how to multiply numbers, we've created a separate class - a 'special education' program, if you will - to give those 5 the additional attention they require. The other 27 of you will have a multiplication test on Friday."

If that were true then the wish spell wouldn't be gotten rid of because little jimmy, timmy, billy, bobby, and june can't figure out how to multiply their numbers.

Valairn
2007-11-06, 12:31 PM
I think a lot of you may be stretching a bit far on what limited information we actually have about 4ed. First of all, simplifying or streamlining a system does remove choice or free thinking. Honestly all they are really doing, is making the mechanics a bit more intuitive, and who can really complain about that. Honestly, look how much Homebrew stuff is out for 3.5, just on this forum alone, we have heaps upon heaps of it, ranging over all sorts of qualities. Now imagine a system that has a bit less overlap and is a bit more intuitive, what you will see is not less good homebrew, you will actually see more. Its simple really.

4th edition is going to have its faults, just like 3rd and 3.5 have theirs. Just like 2nd edition and all the way back to original had their faults. The thing I've seen them trying to do, is make the system more complete and thorough, a more streamlined spellcasting system, with spell levels probably attached to character levels, a short burst of epic thrown into the actual game system, a more complete core deity selection. I mean look at what they did with deities, they removed the racial associations or at least toned them down, that would equal more choice not less. They made the planar cosmology more complete, giving it a more fluid and open environment, where all sorts of interesting things can lurk.

The majority of these changes are good, if only for the sake of creating a good solid core system where the choices given to players are better defined. I'm really not a 4th edition fanboy, I LOVE 3.5, I'm extremely sad to see it go, 3.5 has wonderful material in it, Incarnum, psionics, Tome of Battle, players handbook 2, these are all amazing supplements to a core game that has a lot going for it. 3.5 is awesome, and i hope 4th edition continues in the direction they have been working on in 3.5.

Wizards of the Coast had to learn a lot of hard lessons, do you think they were happy about having to do a 3.5? If you read their blogs you'll realize that they were not happy at all, it wasn't a money making scam, they really honestly felt like their game was unbalanced, and you know what, 3.0 was broken, so is 3.5, but not nearly as bad as 3.0.

3 editions in 8 years? That's a silly statement, there is nothing wrong with keeping the system up to date. Yeah you have to go out and buy new books, but you would have to buy new supplements anyway. A quicker turn around on a rule system, is actually a sign of a good designer. Take a look at Diablo 2, the game when it was originally released is a completely different game than the 1.10 version of the game + expansion pack, literally completely friggin different, yeah there are still the same locations and stories, but what classes are "better" and how the skills system works are all changed. And its a friggin good thing too, because the game matured a whole lot and is still a joy to play.

I would hope that 4th edition continues in the same manner, think of all the new rules in the splatbooks for 3.5, swift actions, class variants in PHBII, all those things, are changes that either could have been made or should have been made to the original rule set, but pen and paper systems aren't so easy to change as a few lines of code and patch thrown out on a server somewhere. And so they did second best, released it as optional additional material. And now hopefully 4th edition will take all those changes, streamline them, iron out the wrinkles and give us a system that is more complete and ready to handle the problems of pen and paper games.

But I digress, lets just wait and see.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:33 PM
You know, I'd find that argument much more convincing if I hadn't played a 3rd edition game with the #1 and #2-ranked students at our top-25 college. #1 was the DM, and all the rest of the players also attended the university. It was our first gaming experience, so we didn't have a huge body of DM notes or house rules to help us out. We played it in-between taking International Economics classes with a guy who has a demand curve named after him, writing 50-page term papers, and trying to eke out a little bit of sleep in the meantime. Stupid we ain't.

We all had fun. The game was simple enough that we didn't have to do differential equations with each roll, but the math was important enough that we screwed ourselves over if we didn't pay attention to it. This left more time for actually role-playing. We weren't interested in doing math for the entire evening. The rules were strict enough that we had some guidelines about characters; but flexible enough that they could accommodate the characters we actually wanted to play. The basic design of the game was excellent. There were super-cheesy combinations that could happen, but we never tried to break the game.

You are an experienced player, and many of my friends are experienced players, all of whom enjoy 3e. And that's cool.

Dude, not everyone tries to break the system.

However, the problem is that what's happening right now is a bunch of bad players are incapable of learning the rules for any amount of role playing, and are so bad at ruining what's going on, that they powers that be keep trying to "fix them" by "fixing the result of the problem" rather than actually fixing the REAL PROBLEM!

The real problem is 3e isn't educating people how to play, it's pandering to the lowest common demoninator! And all you're going to see is Magic the Gathering type of "it takes 50 binders to hold all this Errattum" trying to fix the fact that some of the people playing the game aren't being told how to play it right!

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:36 PM
Wizards of the Coast had to learn a lot of hard lessons, do you think they were happy about having to a 3.5? If you read their blogs you'll realize that they were not happy at all, it wasn't a money making scam, they really honestly felt like their game was unbalanced, and you know what, 3.0 was broken, so is 3.5, but not nearly as bad as 3.0.

But I digress, lets wait and see, we only have a few months left anyway.


alright, I'll wait and see. However. Much of what was broken in 3e and 3.5 was the use of Feats, which were essentially rules taken from the widely discounted Player's Option books.

WoTC refuses to remove or rectify the feat system. So I've got very little hope that 4e will fix any of the inherent problems.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 12:37 PM
However, the problem is that what's happening right now is a bunch of bad players are incapable of learning the rules for any amount of role playing, and are so bad at ruining what's going on, that they powers that be keep trying to "fix them" by "fixing the result of the problem" rather than actually fixing the REAL PROBLEM!

The real problem is 3e isn't educating people how to play, it's pandering to the lowest common demoninator! And all you're going to see is Magic the Gathering type of "it takes 50 binders to hold all this Errattum" trying to fix the fact that some of the people playing the game aren't being told how to play it right!

WotC can't fix the gamers, they can only fix the game.

Valairn
2007-11-06, 12:41 PM
Well it is your prerogative to have a negative outlook, and I'm certainly not going to tell you its wrong. But I am simply going to point out the general improvement of released material over time from WoTC. First there were some hit and miss splat books, like complete psionics(miss), complete adventurer(semi-hit), complete arcane(semi-hit). And then later came the PHBII, Tome of Battle, Incarnum, Tome of Magic, all of which were pretty friggin fantastic mechanically even if not always a hit fluff wise. So WoTC has improved their material overtime and has gotten better at releasing content that either fixes inherent flaws, or new ideas that fit well into the old system. So I'm at least fairly optimistic that 4th edition will be at the very least equivalent in quality to 3.5 core, and that's not a shabby goal either. And stemming from that, it will probably be better than 3.5 core.

Telonius
2007-11-06, 12:47 PM
You are an experienced player, and many of my friends are experienced players, all of whom enjoy 3e. And that's cool.

Dude, not everyone tries to break the system.

However, the problem is that what's happening right now is a bunch of bad players are incapable of learning the rules for any amount of role playing, and are so bad at ruining what's going on, that they powers that be keep trying to "fix them" by "fixing the result of the problem" rather than actually fixing the REAL PROBLEM!

The real problem is 3e isn't educating people how to play, it's pandering to the lowest common demoninator! And all you're going to see is Magic the Gathering type of "it takes 50 binders to hold all this Errattum" trying to fix the fact that some of the people playing the game aren't being told how to play it right!

Actually, for what I was talking about, I wasn't an experienced player; and that's the point. We were all extremely intelligent people, who had just never played AD&D. That's a pretty good description of a lot of people my age and younger that Wizards is trying to market to. 3rd ed, 3.5 included, didn't seem directed at idiots. It was just right for getting new people into the game who'd never played it before. It accommodated just about everything that we wanted to do with our characters. It definitely has its problems, mainly due to class imbalance. Those problems weren't foreseen by the creators, who apparently playtested wizards as blasters; and the splatbook explosion didn't help. Basically, I think that they're trying to fix that situation with 4e.

Anyway, regarding Wish; I'm not sad to see it go. It ought to be the province of genies, leprechauns, and possibly falling stars.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-06, 12:50 PM
And monkey's paws.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-06, 01:01 PM
I suspect that this is all a marketing ploy for Fifth Edition - in a few years' time, they can advertise their next product with bringing back the Wish!


Say, does anyone have a link for an old thread, or newsgroup, from just before Third Edition came out? It would be fun to read now.

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-06, 01:06 PM
However, the problem is that what's happening right now is a bunch of bad players are incapable of learning the rules for any amount of role playing, and are so bad at ruining what's going on, that they powers that be keep trying to "fix them" by "fixing the result of the problem" rather than actually fixing the REAL PROBLEM!

The real problem is 3e isn't educating people how to play, it's pandering to the lowest common demoninator!

You seem to be making this association between "doesn't consider memorising tables to be a fun part of a game" and "**** who tries to build broken characters, doesn't roleplay and is generally a ****". If this were valid then making the game less appealing to people in the first category would reduce the number of player who are in the second.
But it doesn't hold. If anything, enjoying number-crunching distracts you from roleplaying (Stormwind can bite me. A man cannot serve 2 masters) and memorising the rules help with munchkninning.

You also seem to be associating "doesn't consider memorising tables to be a fun part of a game" with "too stupid to memorise all the necessary tables".

Indon
2007-11-06, 01:06 PM
Step One: Wait until you have just passed 18th level.*
Step Two: Cast Five Wish spells in a row to increase an Stat by 5. (this will knock you down to 16th level) *
Step Three: Planeshift to a Random Plane Where You Know You Will Be Challenged But Not Killed. Wander around for a while to make up for the 25000 xps you just lost.
Step Four: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three five more times to max out your stats.
Step Five: Repeat Steps One, Two, and Three and Four for all of your adventuring buddies.

Congratulations, with a Planeshift/Wish combo you have now added +5 to all of your stats (never mind all of the loot you got for the level appropriate encounters). While it is hard to get a lot of xps at high level if you are just running around your home prime, it is a lot easier when are dealing with, quite literally, infinity.


Assuming that you have a three-person party, you just spent 450,000 XP on doing this.

Instead of getting +5 to all your stats with Wish, you could have become an Epic Wizard.

Wish may be very powerful, with vast resource investment, but it's one of the best balanced 9'th level spells in the game as-is. Only Meteor Swarm is less breakable.


Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."

Do you think that 4'th edition will be a system that encourages free-form plot devices?

Because I suspect it will simply continue its' strict emphasis on rules that it initiated in 3'rd edition, continuing to generate a D&D culture in which actions like making entire mechanics up for the sake of plot are almost unheard of.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-06, 01:38 PM
Strict emphasis on rules? 3rd edition does not emphasize following the rules more than 2nd edition. I'd guess your opinion comes from two things:
1. 3rd edition rules cover more situations, so there's less need to make up new rulesets.
2. Increased player whining when the GM doesn't follow the rules.


Do you think that 4'th edition will be a system that encourages free-form plot devices?

I think it will encourage reasonable plot devices, like the organizations & places of power in PHB2/DMG2, with malleable creation rules & multiple examples to show GMs how to craft something unique & interesting without venturing into railroading or broken. Free-form can go horribly, horribly wrong without proper training.

iceman
2007-11-06, 01:39 PM
To get back to the original topic;

What about the good players who don't try to abuse the Wish spell? Are they to now be punished by having a good spell removed because of BAD players and DM's that abuse or allow the abuse of the spell. That doesn't really seem to be fair.:smallfrown:

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-06, 01:50 PM
To get back to the original topic;

What about the good players who don't try to abuse the Wish spell? Are they to now be punished by having a good spell removed because of BAD players and DM's that abuse or allow the abuse of the spell. That doesn't really seem to be fair.:smallfrown:

The question is, how many of the good players care? If we really want a Wish, we can go about it the interesting way and capture an efreeti (or get in a djinni's good graces). Or we could research a 9th-level spell that does a similar thing. Or just roll up the sleeves and do it via elbow grease. There's enough workarounds that Wish's removal doesn't concern me.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 06:01 PM
I'm actually in an AD&D 2E game, IRL, right now. With house rules, like all AD&D games.

The system is absolute crap. Anything D&D does to distance itself from that is good.

I have many, many complaints with the 3.5 system. AD&D... it isn't even a system. It's a loose association of random rules people cam eup with off of the top of their head, with no design philosophy and no knowledge of good game design--you just have to look at things like racial level caps to see that.

No, forget racial level caps. Having a prime stat of 16+--a rare occurence in most AD&D games, and one that makes your character significantly better than anything below it; 16 is where the bonuses really start being granted--makes you earn 10% more experience. That's right: the people with the more powerful characters get more XP. That is the absolute freaking opposite of good game design. I am mindboggled as to how someone could've thought this was a good idea.


If you think "there's nothing wrong with the game"--AD&D or 3.5--you are seriously kidding yourself. A good DM can compensate for the many problems, but he shouldn't have to.

Edit: Oh, and no, full casters weren't the be all end all of the game in AD&D. Instead, wizards had one spell at first level, and their spells known were determined randomly. So they had one crappy spell. That they didn't even pick. That's more useless than 3.5 fighters are at high levels.

And then they got up to high levels and *did* become the be-all end-all of the game. For all the talk about fighter saving throws, even a level 20 fighter has to roll a 6 to save vs. spells. He might have a bonus, but then, at that level, he's going to be facing spells that force saves at a -4 penalty.

Heh. What a surprise reaction.

kamikasei
2007-11-06, 06:08 PM
Oh please, it's destroying the foundation of encounters that affect role playing. If you hate tables and rules so much then either play original D&D which had almost 0 rules, or play something from WoD.

The total abandonment of ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for the current system just because a few kids can't learn how to DM makes me utterly sick.

Hang on; am I completely misunderstanding you, or are you arguing that by making the rules simpler, like in WoD, 4e will make roleplaying harder, like in WoD?

That rings kind of false...


You seem to be making this association between "doesn't consider memorising tables to be a fun part of a game" and "**** who tries to build broken characters, doesn't roleplay and is generally a ****". If this were valid then making the game less appealing to people in the first category would reduce the number of player who are in the second.
But it doesn't hold. If anything, enjoying number-crunching distracts you from roleplaying (Stormwind can bite me. A man cannot serve 2 masters) and memorising the rules help with munchkninning.

You also seem to be associating "doesn't consider memorising tables to be a fun part of a game" with "too stupid to memorise all the necessary tables".

Yeah, this more or less nails my reaction. I'm not an unintelligent guy, my aptitudes lean towards math and science, and I like exploring and tinkering with abstract systems. All that said, a simpler, more streamlined, more elegant rule system which lets me spend more mental cycles on what would my character do here than on am I adding up all the right bonuses to let me do this, crap, did that feat choice last level totally cripple my build I would welcome with open arms.

There is much that may be wrong with 4e, which we'll see when it comes out, but simply being simpler is not a crime.

Aquillion
2007-11-06, 06:39 PM
I'm sure the Ring of Three Wishes will still be around for that possibility. :smallwink:

As for the others, well, if they're nuking the scared cow that is known as Wish, what makes you think Time Stop, Shapechange and all of the other broken spells won't hit the chopping block? :smallamused:
Have you ever actually played with anyone who cast Wish? Absent a totally insane DM who lets you go beyond the spell's normal limits and do whatever you want (which the spell's description specifically advises against.), 3rd edition Wish is not a 'sacred cow' or even particularly a broken spell. For that matter, it isn't a 'good spell'. I wouldn't even qualify it as a 'usable spell'.

5000 xp is a lot. Even at the level you get Wish, it's around a fourth of what you need to go up a level. Think about that for a second. If you cast one wish, in your entire adventuring career, you will for the forseeable future be a level behind the rest of your party 1/4th of the time. If you cast two wishes, it'll be 50% of the time. If you're going that far, the rest of your party will hit epic levels substantially before you do. There is nothing any actual DM will let you get accomplish with Wish that is worth that cost.

Wish was nerfed into unusability (for players, at least) ages ago. At this point, removing it has nothing to do with balance (because Wish, as written, will actually make your character substantially weaker if you use it), and more to do with the vague wording of the spell.

I do think that it's good for it to be removed. While it is good to encourage roleplaying and DM creativity, the problem with Wish is how easily it could put the DM in a bind. When a player casts it, they will lose 5000 xp and spend a 9th level spell slot. If their Wish asks for something powerful, the DM has to (often fairly quickly, if it's the middle of a fight) decide how to balance that off-the-cuff. There are certainly DMs out there who can do that, yes, but let's be honest here: It's easy to make a mistake. The player who spent a fourth of a character level on the effect you give them is going to be pissed if it's too weak, and it can unbalance your entire game if it's too strong. Taking potentially inexperienced DMs and forcing them into that situation by printing a spell in the book that explicitly requires that they make that sort of hard DM call when a high-level player requires it was always a bad idea.

I have no doubt the spell will be restored in a splatbook. In fact, I think it belongs in a splatbook. It should be something that enters the game because the DM feels comfortable with it and decides to use it, not something that's part of the core rules.

Likewise, I suspect they'll make Rings of Three Wishes and all other wish-granting items into minor artifacts, if they leave them in at all. It makes sense given their power, and lets the DM decide when they enter the game.

Serpent Stare
2007-11-06, 07:35 PM
Dudes, fascinating arguments on the whole "changing the system for inexperienced players" thing, but I can see pretty clearly which side makes more sense to me.

I think that D&D will always attract creative people who are bright enough to wrap their heads around the rules or modify them a little so that they can. There will always be bad players and DMs in any system, and by that I don't mean anything less than Wonder-Steve The Ultimate Role Player. People will do as much as they can with the world they play in. If someone can't handle the concepts of a game, they either need to sit down and figure it out, or find something else to do. D&D is not for everyone, and no-one ever said that it had to be.

Also, a lot of concern here seems to be centered around the concept of things a wet-behind-the-ears DM couldn't handle. One of the most important things to remember is that if the DM can't handle something, he doesn't have to. He can avoid it. Be a player for a little longer, or set up a lower-level campaign. A newbie DM probably shouldn't be dealing with characters powerful enough to cast Wish in any case.

Also Also:
"Teacher - since 5 of you in our 32 person 3rd grade class can't understand how to multiply numbers, or learn your multiplication tables, we've decided to stop teaching multiplication. From now on all you're allowed to learn and use are addition and subtraction tables."

Sad though it is, this is very nearly almost happening. When fewer people are up to standard, the education system lowers the standards, because that's easier than teaching students who aren't interested in learning or, for that matter, getting them interested. I'm of the opinion that this shouldn't be happening in schools, let alone a game system. Teaching is a fine thing. Manufacturing robots is a fine thing too. But never the two should mix. :smalleek:

Reel On, Love
2007-11-06, 07:41 PM
Heh. What a surprise reaction.

I know, right, whodathunk?

For the record, my 2E game is relatively enjoyable.
This is despite of the system, not because of it.

Compare and contrast with the Spirit of the Century game I run, where the system actively contributes to the fun.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-06, 07:52 PM
I know, right, whodathunk?

For the record, my 2E game is relatively enjoyable.
This is despite of the system, not because of it.

Compare and contrast with the Spirit of the Century game I run, where the system actively contributes to the fun.

Indeed, this is the crux of the issue. The fact remains that if the system is crappy, then enjoyment is had despite the system, not because of it.

Obviously imaginative and experienced DMs and players will be able to get enjoyable games despite the flaws in the system, but then, they could do so from free-form roleplay too... i.e. it's not much of an excuse for bad design. Besides, said experienced DMs and players can houserule their Wish spells right back in there if they want to go for reality warping: they can gain enjoyment from a good system no less than from a bad one.

And as has been said above: players and DMs are not either wholly bad or wholly good: there is a continuous spectrum. Moreover, player groups can be mixed: providing tools to enable the DM to keep the not-quite-good player in check so his shenannigans don't ruin everyone else's fun is a worthy objective. Assuming you are talking about a system people actually have to shell out money for, anyway.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 08:00 PM
I know, right, whodathunk?

For the record, my 2E game is relatively enjoyable.
This is despite of the system, not because of it.

Compare and contrast with the Spirit of the Century game I run, where the system actively contributes to the fun.

Glad to hear it's going well. Spirit of the Century has been on my list for a while. No idea when I'll get the time to take a look.


Indeed, this is the crux of the issue. The fact remains that if the system is crappy, then enjoyment is had despite the system, not because of it.

Yeah, but these things are usually preferential. 2e, as a system, suffers from bad editing, and partly as a result the action resolution system is virtually none existant. That said, as with 3e, the system could contribute to the fun, but it could also detract from it.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-06, 08:08 PM
Glad to hear it's going well. Spirit of the Century has been on my list for a while. No idea when I'll get the time to take a look.
There hasn't been an actual combat yet, mind. That'll be interesting, since the DM like larger-scale combat (five players, two characters each, and ten hireling NPCs on top of that). My bard is going to ride around shooting things with the magical bow she inherited, and the fighter/mage is gonna ride around throwing darts at everything.

As for SotC, you're in luck: Here's the SRD (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html), and unlike the d20 SRD it's not missing anything. However, the SotC book is well worth buying for its words and advice on pulp, gaming, DMing, using the system, etc. Or you could just buy the PDF, it's cheaper.

It's a BRILLIANT system for pulp, and it's easily adapted to anything with a pulp feel--like Star Wars or (as in our case) the Eberron setting; both of these are popular conversions. I've heard of a bunch of people running "Spirit of Middle-Earth" fairl successfully, too, despite ME not being particularily pulp.


Yeah, but these things are usually preferential. 2e, as a system, suffers from bad editing, and partly as a result the action resolution system is virtually none existant. That said, as with 3e, the system could contribute to the fun, but it could also detract from it.
I think that in 3E the system detracts from the roleplaying fun to some extent, but not any more than 2E does. However, the difference is that the 3E system can be fun to use, mechanics-wise. Character building, combat options, etc. are their own entertainment, and 3E definitely lets you do that (even if it isn't, y'know, particularily well-balanced).


Edit: for the record, I've both run and played in freeform games. You could run a SotC-type game without the system. You couldn't run an AD&D game without the system--the game is so much *about* the system.
Freeform + Percentile Dice + the DM doing his best to assign appropriate percentages would probably work about as well for an AD&D game as AD&D, but it wouldn't have the same feel--the feel of the *game*, not the feel of the *roleplaying*.

Overlard
2007-11-06, 08:21 PM
alright, I'll wait and see. However. Much of what was broken in 3e and 3.5 was the use of Feats, which were essentially rules taken from the widely discounted Player's Option books.

WoTC refuses to remove or rectify the feat system. So I've got very little hope that 4e will fix any of the inherent problems.
Of course they won't remove the feat system, it's a highly successful and extremely popular system. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's fundamentally flawed or needs to go.

You're one of the few that thinks there's a problem with feats. Ever wondered if it's you that is the problem?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-06, 08:23 PM
Y'know, Dalboz, if you wanna prove us wrong, list ONE feat that is totally broken without hope of fixing it, that is not Divine Metamagic, and not Leadership, which is intended for good players and not munchkins.

Irreverent Fool
2007-11-06, 08:24 PM
aw, come on! out of all the over powered spells, they say wish is dead for sure? that, unlike timestop or miracle, its power was, per RAW, under DM control. And as a DM, few things are funnier than screwing someone using wish.

They don't want anything under DM control. They want every possible situation to have an applicable rule so the sessions will devolve into rules-bickering and people will get disgusted and go play in the pay-by-month online games that Wizards/Hasbro/etc has its fingers in.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-06, 08:28 PM
Y'know, Dalboz, if you wanna prove us wrong, list ONE feat that is totally broken without hope of fixing it, that is not Divine Metamagic, and not Leadership, which is intended for good players and not munchkins.

Uncanny Forethought from Exemplars of Evil.
Assume Supernatural Ability from Savage Species.

The point isn't that some specific feats are broken--they are. So are some classes. So are dart-throwing Fighters and Bladesingers in AD&D. That's meaningless.

Dalboz seems to think that the very idea of feats is somehow Badwrong, though, and he has yet to back that up.


Edit: right, WotC is going to pry Rule Zero out of your cold, dead hands. Eyeroll. Having concrete rules doesn't make sessions dissolve into rules bickering, having AMBIGUOUS rules does. If there's nothing to interpret, the DM either says "we run it this way" or "I'm the DM, we run it this other way because I say so" and that's the end of it.

They're removing Wish because Wish sucked. It's not that it was up to DM interpretation--the entire campaign is up to the DM. It's that it was so totally inconsistent. Some DMs used the most literal wording possible. Some did their very best to screw you over. "I wish for X." "You get X... AND THEN YOU DIE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WISH NOT TO!" Some DMs were nice/lenient and went with your intention. It was a crappy spell, and it was crappy in part because of the old-school "must... screw... player... over!" mentality.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-06, 08:29 PM
You guys do realize that supplements like Tomb of Battle or Tomb of Magic (things you guys seem to love) are most likely prototypes for fourth edition? These guys release supplements that match what their thinking about. Much as the player's options were a pre-cursor to third edition (in an attempt to provide more concrete and complex rules, and provide rules for governing none combat things [something that wasn't even part of chainmail]). tome of battle and magic (and starwars saga) are precursors to fourth edition (attempts to balance out casters and none casters).

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-06, 08:35 PM
We know, lord. In fact, that's a reason I'm giving the 4th ed teh suppah benefit of doubt. Because, for once, we might have some semblance of relative balance between chars at core. We might see fighters who can do great Feats of martial prowess without expending feats on it, so that they aren't jsut meatshield for Batmans.


Naaaaaaah, that's utopian.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-06, 08:37 PM
Naaaaaaah, that's utopian.

It's also specifically what they're going for. While they're at it, they're dropping the "I'm a wizard, I do three things at first level and then I'm done" phenomenon too, which also sucks.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-06, 08:40 PM
They tried that with 3.5 too, or so they claimed, and we have seen scary things. It seems they're actually going to pull something off, though, this time. There's two reasons I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. One, they are trying to go for uses per encounter systems for everyone, which will make everyone more balanced. Two, the lead designer is Mike "I'm the closest thing to a Batman Wizard for design you've got" Mearls. Iron heroes is full of win, so we might actually have a low chance at a balanced core.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-06, 08:42 PM
They tried that with 3.5 too, or so they claimed, and we have seen scary things. It seems they're actually going to pull something off, though, this time. There's two reasons I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. One, they are trying to go for uses per encounter systems for everyone, which will make everyone more balanced. Two, the lead designer is Mike "I'm the closest thing to a Batman Wizard for design you've got" Mearls. Iron heroes is full of win, so we might actually have a low chance at a balanced core.

I don't think they really tried that with 3.5; they were too busy trying to make a consistent system. And they've learned a whole ton about game design since--read the Design & Development articles for the MIC, for example, or look at the ToB .

The signs look good, so I'm hopeful, personally.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-06, 08:44 PM
What she said. SW Saga Edition is another place to look for Fourth Edition Previews, and the Magic Item Compendium itself shows good design sense.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 08:45 PM
You guys do realize that supplements like Tomb of Battle or Tomb of Magic (things you guys seem to love) are most likely prototypes for fourth edition?

You know, I've been looking through Unearthed Arcana and noticing that quite a few things in there are what 4e looks to be using. Level Based Skills (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#levelBasedSkills), Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm), Class Defense Bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm), Injury Status (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm), Players Roll All The Dice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm), Action Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm), and Recharge Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) all seem to be making at least some sort of appearance.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-06, 08:58 PM
Could we possibly get that reserve hit point variant in? It would be nice. No hero is a real hero if they don't just stand up at half full health after a meteor swarm reduces 'em to 1 hp.

Valairn
2007-11-06, 09:03 PM
Well unearthed arcana was a friggin red herring approach to development. I mean for them, all they had to do was come up with all sorts of weird optional rules and release them in a book and see which ones stuck. It worked perfectly. The gets gobs upon gobs of useful discussions on implementing the alternate rule sets and all they have to do is read what we the players are doing. There are the fixes to the bloodlines you can find lurking in the wizards boards, and they seem to have used a variant of that for their races. They threw out epic rules and got to see how people modified/fixed its god awful balance issues.

I mean wizards is pretty lucky, they have an extremely dedicated fan base, that loves optimizing/breaking/inventing and otherwise doing who knows what to their rule systems and then we post it on the internet for them to read conveniently at their own pace. It perfect for them, and you can see the results. For years people were going fighters suck fighters suck no seriously FIGHTERS SUCK. And then wizards was like TOB HA! And now they've taken their alternate rule set for melee and are incorporating it into the core for 4th edition at least they are incorporating a pared down version that's less bulky.

Pretty much all those things people talk about daily on these boards and elsewhere, wizards can use and sift through and look at what other people are doing and take the good ideas out and use them for the next splat book they write.

And it shows that they have been listening, it also shows that they are geting better at making games that work, the splat books recently have been overall much better than the books that were released right after 3.5.

Wizards had a lot of pressure on them when they made 3.0, and they did their best to preserve what made it the successor to ADnD, after they had built a loyal fan base, they then had the freedom to build a system that made a bit more sense and didn't need house rules to be functional. Which was a huge problem before.

I know a lot of people don't like change, and people were playing second edition for so long they forgot that their could be a new edition, and some of that mentality still lurks in the community, so I get why people respond negatively to the new ideas that are coming from wizards.

But I challenge the assumption that they don't know what they are doing, it makes perfect sense to me that they would attempt to streamline the rules in such a way as to make the rules apparent so the DM can focus on what is already the difficult task of making a campaign that works.

Its a fairly organic evolution that wizards is approaching their new edition with. They really are not shaking the boat as much as people would like to believe. A lot of the complaints are just like when 3rd ed came out. I still remember people arguing that ThaC0 was better than the new AC system, and that anyone should be able to use it. Yeah ThaC0 was fine, but AC is better and way more intuitive than Thaco ever was.

The game has to go somewhere, I'm pretty happy about the new edition, I'm not sold yet, I'll have to see it first, but I don't think wizards is doing anything wrong and they should be encouraged to make DnD even better than it is today.