Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Falconer wrote:I’m not so sure. As I said, I think people are aware that 4e’s days are numbered in a way they somehow weren’t with 3e. Also, I think Pathfinder and OSRIC have changed peoples’ assumption that they will “upgrade” by default.

Perhaps. It is my understanding WotC needs a new edition of D&D every few years to sell more core books. My friend works for WotC and he has implied sales are at their best when selling a new edition. 4e's sales were not as expected, so they are working on 5e.

Monsters being classified into "Humanoids," "Animals", "Lowlife(vermin)," "Constructs", etc.

Clangador wrote:

Falconer wrote:I’m not so sure. As I said, I think people are aware that 4e’s days are numbered in a way they somehow weren’t with 3e. Also, I think Pathfinder and OSRIC have changed peoples’ assumption that they will “upgrade” by default.

Perhaps. It is my understanding WotC needs a new edition of D&D every few years to sell more core books. My friend works for WotC and he has implied sales are at their best when selling a new edition. 4e's sales were not as expected, so they are working on 5e.

Blech! Some rich Uber-Grognard needs to buy the rights to D&D and stop this madness.

The day people start calling 4ed "old school" will be the day I die.

(Sorry, this post probably should have been a "lurk." )

Cimmerian wrote:Careful! Let's keep it under 100 buddy!

Too late . . .

The Shaman wrote:

Cimmerian wrote:Careful! Let's keep it under 100 buddy!

Too late . . .

Welcome to the Nerd Club . If you're feeling embarrassed now, just wait until you look up and realize you have over 6,000...

Congrats to “Clangador” for breaking 1,000!

T. Foster wrote:Welcome to the Nerd Club . If you're feeling embarrassed now, just wait until you look up and realize you have over 6,000...

"A certain skill at billiards is the mark of a gentleman, but to play too well is the sign of a misspent youth."

Falconer wrote:Congrats to “Clangador” for breaking 1,000!

Thanks. Do I get a prize?

I lurk because by the time I read a thread someone has already posted my opinion!

Solinor wrote:I lurk because by the time I read a thread someone has already posted my opinion!

Damn . . . that's what I was gonna say . . .

This.

http://members.tripod.com/tiny_dancer/yipyip3.mp3

Chello!

James Maliszewski wrote:

Philotomy Jurament wrote:Yeah, I think with 3e a lot of people saw it as "improved D&D," and not "different game still named D&D."

That's very true and helped, I think, by the fact that 3e actually uses a surprisingly large amount of 1e text verbatim. I was amazed at this myself

Well, I've always viewed 3E as Monte Cook's "D&D: The House-Rule Edition." I mean that as, let's face it, WotC did what most of us would do if we had the buy to buy out TSR. He tinkered with it, changed some stuff "to make it better." Agree with what he did or not, I think we know that we would. Look at OSRIC (bard left out, no tables for individual weapons vs. AC, etc.), ADDICT, Labyrinth Lord, etc., etc., ad infinitium, ad nauseam. There is a love for the game visible in that work. And, yes, they did have the plan to upgrade every so often to increase sales. However....

4E is corporate-run, not designer-run. They could care less about the game and its history and more about money.

Lord Kjeran wrote: Look at OSRIC (bard left out, no tables for individual weapons vs. AC, etc.)...

Right, but those were not decisions made for preference, rather because they were determined to be legally non-replicable within the constraints of the open game license. There are some intentional diversions from the original books, but those were made to conform to what Gygax later explained he had intended.

Matthew wrote:

Lord Kjeran wrote: Look at OSRIC (bard left out, no tables for individual weapons vs. AC, etc.)...

Right, but those were not decisions made for preference, rather because they were determined to be legally non-replicable within the constraints of the open game license. There are some intentional diversions from the original books, but those were made to conform to what Gygax later explained he had intended.

Could you elaborate on this?

Clangador wrote: Could you elaborate on this?

If something is not in the D20 SRD then it has to be mathematically replicable, otherwise you run the risk of impinging on the artistic presentation of the original work if you attempt to include it. The monk and bard classes, weapon speed factors and weapon type versus armour class modifiers are examples of this. Some passages in the DMG are open to interpretation, but where an answer was desirable for the sake of clarity then where possible OSRIC is informed by later clarifications provided by Gygax. Changing the duration of the various healing spells from "permanent" to "instantaneous" was one of these, if I recall correctly, as well as taking a stance on resolving initiative.