Classes with diff. power schedules drawing from same list

[CaptPike]

Goddamn it, I know I was stupid for clicking to read your post. I got sucked back in since it was a different thread than the 4e sales, but you're the exact same kind of dishonestly-stupid here as there.

"Why didn't they spell out the problems"? They did. In that very fucking text block that has already been quoted.

We have too many powers that are too similar. Listing powers under specific classes might have helped organize the Player's Handbook for the specific task of character creation, but it launched us on a design and development path where we created many similar powers whose only substantive difference is the class those powers appear under. If I told you "I'm thinking of a 2[W] power that dazes for 1 round—which class does that power belong to?" you couldn't begin to guess. Almost anybody might have that power.

In earlier editions, some spells were allowed to appear on multiple class lists. We considered this a moderate nuisance in 3rd Edition, because it was strange that you couldn't describe hold person as a 2nd-level spell—for the wizard, it wasn't. I have belatedly come to realize that overlapping spell lists are a good thing, because they give spells like hold person and dispel magic unique identities in the game. When I play 4e, I don't recognize most of the powers that my fellow players are using, and that's a shame. In retrospect, I wish we'd just created a Powers Appendix of iconic, diverse effects (including martial powers, of course), and granted each class access to different subsets of those powers. The game would be better with a smaller number of iconic and memorable powers even if classes overlapped a bit more.

It's not an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that the people are not personally known to you. The argument is laid out right there in english words for all to see. Even the people who screwed up 4e realized that they screwed up and one of them explained why.

I responded to their argument, I just did not assume they were right because of what is under their name tag.

yes he has a good point, no it is not good enough to justify taking 90% of what makes a class a class and giving it to other classes.

Some shared spells? sure I can see that working, but not most unless you have powerful enough class features that define what classes do more then spells.

EDIT: my point was the who said the argument does not matter, that his logic was not enough and it does not matter who said it. If he had information I do not he should have said that.

[deaddmwalking]

I feel bad responding to two of your posts one after the other, but I feel this needs to be said.

You having data only helps if either you share it or I trust you to use it well and not have any reason to lie or mislead. Neither of those is the case here.

My having data only helps whom if I share it or you trust me? If I claim to have data and I refuse to share it, you might have a point. On the other hand, if the data has been shared and you don't trust it, you should probably explain why. In good scientific fashion, the data has been made available for you to review. But let's talk about the larger point. You don't understand sampling. For all your claims to 'logic' you're being an idiot.

Since you brought this up before, imagine that I have a limited data set of temperatures in Texas from June to the end of November. Let's say further that over that time, the temperature dropped on average 1/4 of a degree per day. Over 180 days, the temperature has fallen 45 degrees. The data (while limited) is alarming. If this pace continues, we'll be dealing with a solidly frozen state before another six months passes.

The data indicates the temperature is falling. If I understand the seasonality I can argue that the data doesn't show that the temperature will reverse, but that it will. But what I can't do is claim that the data actually shows the temperature was rising.

The data with 4e across the board indicates a failure. For myself, I don't care. It wouldn't matter to me if 4th edition were the most popular edition and everyone I knew played it or if (as it appears) it was one of the least popular editions and I know more people playing AD&D than 4th. I keep using the term 'failure' as if we agreed on what it means. You can't say I 'don't have data' for 4e's failure if you allow me to define failure the way I like.

4th edition is a failure to me because it drove me from a regular purchaser of gaming books into a non-purchaser (ie, drove me from the market). I bought some Pathfinder immediately after the shift, but ultimately decided that it didn't do what I wanted. There are problems with 3.x - believe me, I KNOW the problems. I would have liked a 4th edition that actually addressed those problems, but that's not what we got. And Pathfinder didn't do it, either. So to me, both were a 'failure' because they failed to build on what 3x got right and address the things it got wrong.

If his reasons were good, I would have listened just like if some random
poster had responded with it.

You might have responded the same, but I seriously doubt you'd have listened.

I can understand why he said it, there ARE advantages to having overlap between classes but unless you make class features way more important then they were in 3e or 4e then powers are what defines classes so they need to be different (for the most most part) if you want classes to be different.

Interestingly, a large number of people feel that the powers in 4e are 'too similar' between classes. Calling two powers that do the exact same thing different names doesn't actually make them different. By your 'logic', 4e, even with different power lists, classes were not sufficiently differentiated because they largely had the same powers with different names. A rose by any other name...

when have I ever said that my feels should matter to you? I have said them because someone asked me or because I was needed an example.

Who asked you? I mean, seriously. You're a new poster here. Who summoned you and said they wanted your opinion?

I think it's fine that you came uninvited. I did, too. The reason to have a forum like this is to discuss ideas and best practices - to expose yourself to other points of view and perhaps improve your own. To do this, you have to be willing to put out your viewpoint and defend it. Your 'feelings', if they 'only matter to you' don't need to be shared. Your expressing them implicitly claims value for them.

Will you stop lying about you knowing for sure, with no doubt that 4e failed? if you just said "I think 4e failed" I would not care, even if you said "4e failed (but I do not know for sure because large chunks of data are missing)" that would also be ok. But you all are claiming fasts you can not possbily have and are putting down something I love in the process for no reason.

And why should you care if I say 'I know 4e failed'? Does it cause you physical pain? I have 'reasons' for claiming to 'know'. You don't think my 'reasons' are sufficient to make the claim. But you are not the judge who gets to determine whether my ideas are sufficiently supported by data to make a claim. Nor are you the judge who gets to determine if I am right after I present that information to you. I don't care to convince you - I don't even care if 4e is a failure or not. If you think that I am spreading misinformation you could try to convince me that my data is unsound (preferably by providing contrary evidence) but you have refused to do that. Instead, you insist that unless you have 'perfect knowledge' you cannot make a claim. I 'know' that the war of 1812 ended in 1814, but I don't have 'perfect knowledge'. Do you know that there was a Japanese soldier that didn't surrender until 1974. Does that mean the war continued past 1945? Your claim that '4e was successful' is like claiming 'the war isn't over' in 1970 and that 'Japan could still win'.

Tellingly, whether 4e was or was not a success is simply a matter of historical curiosity - 4th edition has been relegated to the dustbin of history.

I know that but does that let them understand the words on the PHB better then me? does it let them see problems with it I do not see? if so why did they not spell them out?

I trust facts, I trust logic, I do NOT trust anyone who wants me to trust them for no reason other then what they do.

Can you imagine a reality in which some people understand something better than you? Can you imagine being blind to a problem? If not, there's no reason for anyone to trust anything you say. I'm not saying you shouldn't say anything (but I can say the world would likely be a better place), but you have to accept that the same reasons other people might be wrong apply equally to you. If you want to challenge a consensus view, you need to be prepared for challenges. There are times when the majority are wrong. But if you believe that to be the case, present evidence. If your feeling is different, but every feeling is equally valid, why argue? Just because you feel demeaned if every statement is not prefaced with 'Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is'. Can you even imagine that world?

Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that lunch would be a good idea. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that Mexican food would be ideal. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that we should avoid 'Dirty Sanchez's Mexican Restaurant'. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that name may refer to a sexual act, which, based on the information I have at hand make me feel that we're likely to suffer an illness if we eat there.

I much prefer 'let's get Mexican but let's go to a place with an 'A' rating from the health inspector.

Maybe the health inspector has an agenda. I don't know him. But without evidence to the contrary, it is generally safe to believe the data you have. If you suspect it, you should generate your own data set for evaluation. So, feel free. Show us where 4e succeeded if it matters that much to you.

EDIT: my point was the who said the argument does not matter, that his logic was not enough and it does not matter who said it. If he had information I do not he should have said that.

People don't have to reveal all of the information they use to make a declaration. Nor do they have to assume what knowledge you have access to. If I say 'Iraq is located in the Middle East', I likely assume that you can easily verify that information. It doesn't matter if I'm a former Iraqi dictator living under an assumed name in Switzerland or if I'm a 2nd grade student at Washington Elementary with access to a globe. If you don't believe the claim, the facts may become relevant. There are all kinds of ways you can challenge an assertion.

You don't think that 'changing the powers' would have fixed 4th edition. I agree. The reason I agree, though, is very different. 4e was a pile of fail so hard that nothing could have fixed it. (Again, I may be willing to amend my statement if we agree of a definition of 'failure' - in this case, I have based it entirely on not having an out-of-combat action resolution system which seems a critical function for any role-playing game.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Please stop wasting text on this guy. If you have to speak to or about him, you should at most use dismissive or insulting memes.

[MGuy]

Yea, text walls are meaningless to this guy. I said it before, I'll say it again: He's already given the game away. Add to that the fact that this guy has a ban history it's like talking to silva in full shill mode.

[hyzmarca]

Except that kind of 4th-wall-breaking pisses people off (and rightfully so).

You can probably make the setting more interesting by integrating it with fluff. All magic is powered by the interaction of combat auras generated by those with killing intent. Therefore, you can only use magic during a fight to the death.

But you don't have to be personally engaged in combat, so Wizard Towers have giant gladiator arenas that constantly need fresh recruits

You can potentially get around such restrictions by hauling slave around with you and forcing them to fight, but it's logistically problematic, so most wizards don't leave their fortresses very often.

[Chamomile]

Do you guys not remember the shadzar debates? This is what deaddm does. He's finally found another punching bag to wail on. It kind of makes me happy for him.

[DSMatticus]

Hah. The Bill one actually made me grin. I hadn't seen that specific one before.

[deaddmwalking]

Do you guys not remember the shadzar debates? This is what deaddm does. He's finally found another punching bag to wail on. It kind of makes me happy for him.

There's a part of me that does enjoy it. And I just happened to have a little extra time since my in-laws are visiting so I'm taking vacation days. But there's also a part of me that feels dirty afterward. It'd be like beating up 2nd graders - I'd feel like Godzilla or King Kong - a powerful giant, but also a monster.

But if CaptPike isn't just a troll, maybe it's not totally worthless. I'll just have to see what he comes back with. But if it's the same stuff, I won't respond. One nice thing is that as I've grown older, I care less about what strangers think of me personally. Like when someone accuses me of being a neckbeard living in my mom's basement and I recognize both how desperate they are to believe that I'm a terrible person but also how wrong they are. As it happens, I own my own home, I'm happily married and I'm expecting my 3rd child. Gaming happens to be a hobby I enjoy that I don't get nearly as much time with as I used to/would like to, but it's mostly just a hobby.

CaptPike is really more like Shitmuffin - trying to control what you are or are not permitted to say and simultaneously setting himself as the arbiter of what does or does not qualify as 'feel/think/know'. The big difference is that Shitmuffin was at least willing to point to 'evidence', it was just 800+ hours of unsorted and largely irrelevant information. This isn't something I'm going to say lightly, but CaptPike is below Zak S as far as my esteem. But, on the other hand, I expect that CaptPike is much younger and feels that any attack on anything he likes is simultaneously an attack on him personally. I do know that it isn't worth engaging with CaptPike. I guess I'll just take it as a 'guilty pleasure'.

[Gnorman]

Noooooo you summoned HIM whyyyy

[schpeelah]

Noooooo you summoned HIM whyyyy

Don't worry, we're inoculated. Maxus put "Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!" in his sig to drown his alerts in noise.

[Kaelik]

Noooooo you summoned HIM whyyyy

Don't worry, we're inoculated. Maxus put "Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!" in his sig to drown his alerts in noise.

Doesn't mean he doesn't just manually read this forum looking for a chance to jump in and call everyone liars.

[CaptPike]

I can understand why he said it, there ARE advantages to having overlap between classes but unless you make class features way more important then they were in 3e or 4e then powers are what defines classes so they need to be different (for the most most part) if you want classes to be different.

Interestingly, a large number of people feel that the powers in 4e are 'too similar' between classes. Calling two powers that do the exact same thing different names doesn't actually make them different. By your 'logic', 4e, even with different power lists, classes were not sufficiently differentiated because they largely had the same powers with different names. A rose by any other name...

first feelings NEVER MATTER, the reasons they felt like this might matter, but if all I know is someones feelings it helps not at all.

objecting to 4e because the powers were to similar but not objecting to 3e for the same reason is not rational, unlike the reverse. Not to mention why would the disction even matter between a game with 1/3 or so overlap in powers, and a game with no overlap but with alot of powers that were almost the same? the result is the same in either case.

And why should you care if I say 'I know 4e failed'? Does it cause you physical pain? I have 'reasons' for claiming to 'know'. You don't think my 'reasons' are sufficient to make the claim. But you are not the judge who gets to determine whether my ideas are sufficiently supported by data to make a claim. Nor are you the judge who gets to determine if I am right after I present that information to you. I don't care to convince you - I don't even care if 4e is a failure or not. If you think that I am spreading misinformation you could try to convince me that my data is unsound (preferably by providing contrary evidence) but you have refused to do that. Instead, you insist that unless you have 'perfect knowledge' you cannot make a claim. I 'know' that the war of 1812 ended in 1814, but I don't have 'perfect knowledge'. Do you know that there was a Japanese soldier that didn't surrender until 1974. Does that mean the war continued past 1945? Your claim that '4e was successful' is like claiming 'the war isn't over' in 1970 and that 'Japan could still win'.

Tellingly, whether 4e was or was not a success is simply a matter of historical curiosity - 4th edition has been relegated to the dustbin of history.

You personal I do not care, but when you post it you perpetuate a lie, no different if I came across an anti-vaxer.

again say that you THINK It failed, and that is not a lie, say that it failed (but you are not 100% sure) that is also not a lie.

Can you imagine a reality in which some people understand something better than you? Can you imagine being blind to a problem? If not, there's no reason for anyone to trust anything you say. I'm not saying you shouldn't say anything (but I can say the world would likely be a better place), but you have to accept that the same reasons other people might be wrong apply equally to you. If you want to challenge a consensus view, you need to be prepared for challenges. There are times when the majority are wrong. But if you believe that to be the case, present evidence. If your feeling is different, but every feeling is equally valid, why argue? Just because you feel demeaned if every statement is not prefaced with 'Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is'. Can you even imagine that world?

Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that lunch would be a good idea. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that Mexican food would be ideal. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that we should avoid 'Dirty Sanchez's Mexican Restaurant'. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that name may refer to a sexual act, which, based on the information I have at hand make me feel that we're likely to suffer an illness if we eat there.

I much prefer 'let's get Mexican but let's go to a place with an 'A' rating from the health inspector.

Maybe the health inspector has an agenda. I don't know him. But without evidence to the contrary, it is generally safe to believe the data you have. If you suspect it, you should generate your own data set for evaluation. So, feel free. Show us where 4e succeeded if it matters that much to you.

First if you only have a feeling on something you should keep your mouth shut because it is just a feeling and they are never important to anyone but you.

if you KNOW something is true you SHOULD say it is true, but if you do not you should say so otherwise no one can trust anything you say because you might have 10% confidence that what you said is true, or you might have 99% who can say?

as I have said many many times before it succeeded on the amazon best seller list, yes that is enough data to KNOW if it succeeded overall but it is enough to cause doubt as to the 3e fan line of "of course 4e failed, duh"

People don't have to reveal all of the information they use to make a declaration. Nor do they have to assume what knowledge you have access to. If I say 'Iraq is located in the Middle East', I likely assume that you can easily verify that information. It doesn't matter if I'm a former Iraqi dictator living under an assumed name in Switzerland or if I'm a 2nd grade student at Washington Elementary with access to a globe. If you don't believe the claim, the facts may become relevant. There are all kinds of ways you can challenge an assertion.

You don't think that 'changing the powers' would have fixed 4th edition. I agree. The reason I agree, though, is very different. 4e was a pile of fail so hard that nothing could have fixed it. (Again, I may be willing to amend my statement if we agree of a definition of 'failure' - in this case, I have based it entirely on not having an out-of-combat action resolution system which seems a critical function for any role-playing game.

they do if they want me to trust that data. well either that or establish that they have good data, are trustworthy and competent. otherwise I can simply go off their logic and reasoning.

Even going by your own metric of the out of combat problem (and I agree it was a problem but hardly an unfixable one) that only applies to casters, non-casters are at worst in the same boat. Its not like a lv10 fighter in 3e had stuff he could do outside combat short of the leadership feat to order other more capable people to do stuff.

And again I must ask if you have more data then me that you know, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, that 4e failed or are you simply puling stuff out of your ass again?

[Maxus]

Noooooo you summoned HIM whyyyy

Don't worry, we're inoculated. Maxus put "Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!" in his sig to drown his alerts in noise.

I have no idea if it works or not, but I like to think it does.

[Mistborn]

Dude what the fuck. 4e failed, it failed in the eyes of the very company that produced it. We know this because WotC canceled the fucking gameline in record time in favor of a new edition that jettisoned 4e's supposed "innovations". That edition also sucks but that's neither here nor there.

I still can't quite belive that you're for real here. You're here to claim success for a game that was declared a failure by the very company that produced it. Seriously dude your war fucking ended stop hiding out in the jungles of the Philippines.

[CaptPike]

Dude what the fuck. 4e failed, it failed in the eyes of the very company that produced it. We know this because WotC canceled the fucking gameline in record time in favor of a new edition that jettisoned 4e's supposed "innovations". That edition also sucks but that's neither here nor there.

I still can't quite belive that you're for real here. You're here to claim success for a game that was declared a failure by the very company that produced it. Seriously dude your war fucking ended stop hiding out in the jungles of the Philippines.

first awesome reference, even if it does not apply here

Second I am claiming that we do not KNOW how well it did because we do not. We know how Wotc acted, but that can mean any one of several things. I do not believe that companies are perfect, do you?

And of course even if I were to accept the idea that 4e failed..that does not mean that it would have succeeded if it was 3.75 like everyone around here wants. It could have turned out worse because of the large number of people who wanted something new.

[deaddmwalking]

And of course even if I were to accept the idea that 4e failed..that does not mean that it would have succeeded if it was 3.75 like everyone around here wants. It could have turned out worse because of the large number of people who wanted something new.

Sure - a 3.75 could have turned out worse. But Pathfinder billed itself as a 3.75 and it didn't. So if you want to believe that a 3.75 wouldn't have done better than 4th edition, you'd have to assume that Wizards did a lot of things to piss off the fan-base as well - at least, if you were a halfway reasonable person. Today is April 23rd, 2015. Pathfinder is killing 4th edition. Well, to be fair, it already killed it. But if continued existence is a sign of success (and it usually is), Pathfinder can put that in the 'win' column.

[CaptPike]

And of course even if I were to accept the idea that 4e failed..that does not mean that it would have succeeded if it was 3.75 like everyone around here wants. It could have turned out worse because of the large number of people who wanted something new.

Sure - a 3.75 could have turned out worse. But Pathfinder billed itself as a 3.75 and it didn't. So if you want to believe that a 3.75 wouldn't have done better than 4th edition, you'd have to assume that Wizards did a lot of things to piss off the fan-base as well - at least, if you were a halfway reasonable person. Today is April 23rd, 2015. Pathfinder is killing 4th edition. Well, to be fair, it already killed it. But if continued existence is a sign of success (and it usually is), Pathfinder can put that in the 'win' column.

Today pathfinder is putting out new material and has a living campaign, 4e has neither. if you want to compare them do so when both were selling new materal on a regular basis. not when one is dead still and the other is not. after all how many people today that are playing 4e are buying new books from Wotc to do so? books sold is only a useful metric when new stuff is coming out.

Besides what do you think 5e is? THAT is what they think the 3e crowd wants and how well its that turning out?

[MGuy]

Guyz we have a thread for this guy. Let's keep the infection there and not spread it around again.

[CaptPike]

Guyz we have a thread for this guy. Let's keep the infection there and not spread it around again.

must not let someone question the groupthink after all

[erik]

Noooooo you summoned HIM whyyyy

Don't worry, we're inoculated. Maxus put "Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!" in his sig to drown his alerts in noise.

I have no idea if it works or not, but I like to think it does.

I think the real lure these days is when Muffins gets that massive spike when one of us stupidly links him and he gets maybe a dozen hits from a single source. The sig counters google alert, but not his inability to resist the lure of a few people following a link to his site.

[Leress]

Guyz we have a thread for this guy. Let's keep the infection there and not spread it around again.

must not let someone question the groupthink after all

Oh you can question, just be ready to back it up.

[...You Lost Me]

must not let someone question the groupthink after all

as I have said many many times before it succeeded on the amazon best seller list

Are you aware of the words you're typing, or are your responses just like a stream of consciousness? This is so bad it's bordering on parody.

[Red_Rob]

Today pathfinder is putting out new material and has a living campaign, 4e has neither. if you want to compare them do so when both were selling new materal on a regular basis. not when one is dead still and the other is not.

Does this not give you pause for thought as to why? Why WotC would cease to print an edition and hand sales and market share to a rival if it was selling well?

Do you also believe Betamax and HD-DVD were "wildly successful" and the manufacturers simply stopped selling them for the lulz?